Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1963–1971 | Cite as

Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD)

  • Noelle E. Carlozzi
  • Anna L. Kratz
  • Nancy R. Downing
  • Siera Goodnight
  • Jennifer A. Miner
  • Nicholas Migliore
  • Jane S. Paulsen
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The reliability and construct validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) were examined in individuals with Huntington disease (HD).

Methods

We examined factor structure (confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), floor and ceiling effects, convergent validity (Pearson correlations), and known-groups validity (multivariate analysis).

Results

Results of a confirmatory factor analysis replicated the six-factor latent model that reflects the six separate scales within the WHODAS 2.0 (understanding and communicating; getting around; self-care; getting along with others; life activities; participation). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.94, suggesting good internal consistency reliability. The WHODAS demonstrated a ceiling effect for 19.5 % of participants; there were no floor effects. There was evidence for convergent validity; the WHODAS demonstrated moderate significant correlations with other general measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL; i.e., RAND-12, EQ5D). Multivariate analyses indicated that late-stage HD participants indicated poorer HRQOL than both early-stage HD and prodromal HD participants for all HRQOL measures.

Conclusions

Findings provide support for both the reliability and validity of the WHODAS 2.0 in individuals with HD.

Keywords

Neuropsychology Neuropsychological assessment World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) Confirmatory factor analysis Psychometrics 

References

  1. 1.
    Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan, J., et al. (2010). Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(11), 815–823.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rehm, J., Ustun, B., Saxena, S., Nelson, C. B., Chatterji, S., Ivis, F., & Adlaf, E. (2006). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8(2), 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scorza, P., Stevenson, A., Canino, G., Mushashi, C., Kanyanganzi, F., Munyanah, M., & Betancourt, T. (2013). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule for children, WHODAS-Child” in Rwanda. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57725.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Posl, M., Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2007). Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Quality of Life Research, 16(9), 1521–1531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garin, O., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Almansa, J., Nieto, M., Chatterji, S., Vilagut, G., et al. (2010). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federici, S., Meloni, F., Mancini, A., Lauriola, M., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2009). World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: Contribution to the Italian validation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(7), 553–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulnik, S. T., & Nikoletou, D. (2014). WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: A qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(2), 146–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McArdle, R., Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: Measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults. Trends Amplif, 9(3), 127–143.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., McArdle, R., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: Psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends in Amplification, 9(3), 111–126.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baron, M., Schieir, O., Hudson, M., Steele, R., Kolahi, S., Berkson, L., et al. (2008). The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(3), 382–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meesters, J. J., Verhoef, J., Liem, I. S., Putter, H., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford), 49(2), 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kutlay, S., Kucukdeveci, A. A., Elhan, A. H., Oztuna, D., Koc, N., & Tennant, A. (2011). Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International, 31(3), 339–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hudson, M., Steele, R., Taillefer, S., & Baron, M. (2008). Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(2), 270–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Masse, L. C., & Dvorak, M. F. (2010). Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(8), 735–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolf, A. C., Tate, R. L., Lannin, N. A., Middleton, J., Lane-Brown, A., & Cameron, I. D. (2012). The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale, WHODAS II: Reliability and validity in the measurement of activity and participation in a spinal cord injury population. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(9), 747–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Masse, L. C., Zhang, H., & Dvorak, M. F. (2010). Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(8), 724–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schlote, A., Richter, M., Wunderlich, M. T., Poppendick, U., Moller, C., Schwelm, K., & Wallesch, C. W. (2009). WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(11), 855–864.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kucukdeveci, A. A., Kutlay, S., Yildizlar, D., Oztuna, D., Elhan, A. H., & Tennant, A. (2013). The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(3), 214–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao, H. P., Liu, Y., Li, H. L., Ma, L., Zhang, Y. J., & Wang, J. (2013). Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 897–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Downing, N. R., Kim, J. I., Williams, J. K., Long, J. D., Mills, J. A., & Paulsen, J. S. (2014). WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease: Measures of functioning in neuropsychiatric disease. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22, 958–963.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guilera, G., Gomez-Benito, J., Pino, O., Rojo, J. E., Cuesta, M. J., Martinez-Aran, A., et al. (2012). Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 138(2–3), 240–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schippers, G. M., Broekman, T. G., Buchholz, A., Koeter, M. W., & van den Brink, W. (2010). Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE): An instrument based on the World Health Organization family of international classifications. Addiction, 105(5), 862–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, J. I., Long, J. D., Mills, J. A., Downing, N., Williams, J. K., Paulsen, J. S., the Predict-HD Investigators, & Group, t. C. o. t. H. S. (in press). Performance of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntingon disease. European Journal of Human Genetics. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sousa, R. M., Dewey, M. E., Acosta, D., Jotheeswaran, A. T., Castro-Costa, E., Ferri, C. P., et al. (2010). Measuring disability across cultures–the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19(1), 1–17.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrews, G., Kemp, A., Sunderland, M., Von Korff, M., & Ustun, T. B. (2009). Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE, 4(12), e8343.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pringsheim, T., Wiltshire, K., Day, L., Dykeman, J., Steeves, T., & Jette, N. (2012). The incidence and prevalence of Huntington’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Movement Disorders, 27(9), 1083–1091.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ho, L. W., Carmichael, J., Swartz, J., Wyttenbach, A., Rankin, J., & Rubinsztein, D. C. (2001). The molecular biology of Huntington’s disease. Psychological Medicine, 31(1), 3–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paulsen, J. S., Hayden, M., Stout, J. C., Langbehn, D. R., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., et al. (2006). Preparing for preventive clinical trials: The predict-HD study. Archives of Neurology, 63(6), 883–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paulsen, J. S., Langbehn, D. R., Stout, J. C., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., Nance, M., et al. (2008). Detection of Huntington’s disease decades before diagnosis: The Predict-HD study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 79(8), 874–880.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shoulson, I., & Fahn, S. (1979). Huntington Disease—Clinical Care and Evaluation. Neurology, 29(1), 1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paulsen, J. S., Hayden, M., Stout, J. C., Langbehn, D. R., Aylward, E., Ross, C. A., et al. (2006). Preparing for preventive clinical trials—The Predict-HD study. Archives of Neurology, 63(6), 883–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hays, R. D., Sherbourn, C. D., & Mazel, R. (1995). User’s manual for the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) core measures of health-related quality of life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND corporation.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feeny, D., Farris, K., Cote, I., Johnson, J. A., Tsuyuki, R. T., & Eng, K. (2005). A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 138–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson, J. A., & Maddigan, S. L. (2004). Performance of the RAND-12 and SF-12 summary scores in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 449–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maddigan, S. L., Feeny, D. H., Johnson, J. A., & Investigators, D. (2004). Construct validity of the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 435–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., & Kazis, L. E. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brazier, J. E., Walters, S. J., Nicholl, J. P., & Kohler, B. (1996). Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Quality of Life Research, 5(2), 195–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dyer, M. T., Goldsmith, K. A., Sharples, L. S., & Buxton, M. J. (2010). A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Calvert, M. J., Freemantle, N., & Cleland, J. G. (2005). The impact of chronic heart failure on health-related quality of life data acquired in the baseline phase of the CARE-HF study. European Journal of Heart Failure, 7(2), 243–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dorman, P., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1998). Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke, 29(1), 63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hurst, N. P., Kind, P., Ruta, D., Hunter, M., & Stubbings, A. (1997). Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). British Journal of Rheumatology, 36(5), 551–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carlozzi, N. E., Miciura, A., Migliore, N., & Dayalu, P. (2014). Understanding the outcomes measures used in Huntington disease pharmacological trials: A systematic review. Journal of Huntington’s Disease, 3(3), 233–252.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Buist-Bouwman, M. A., Ormel, J., De Graaf, R., Vilagut, G., Alonso, J., Van Sonderen, E., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2008). Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(4), 185–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Carlozzi, N. E., & Tulsky, D. S. (2013). Identification of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to individuals with Huntington disease. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 212–225.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Downing, N. R., Williams, J. K., & Paulsen, J. S. (2010). Couples’ attributions for work function changes in prodromal Huntington disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(4), 343–352.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noelle E. Carlozzi
    • 1
  • Anna L. Kratz
    • 1
  • Nancy R. Downing
    • 2
  • Siera Goodnight
    • 1
  • Jennifer A. Miner
    • 1
  • Nicholas Migliore
    • 1
  • Jane S. Paulsen
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.College of NursingThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry, Carver College of MedicineThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of Neurology, Carver College of MedicineThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations