Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD)
- 500 Downloads
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).
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 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.
Findings provide support for both the reliability and validity of the WHODAS 2.0 in individuals with HD.
KeywordsNeuropsychology Neuropsychological assessment World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) Confirmatory factor analysis Psychometrics
Work on this manuscript was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1R01NS077946, 5R01NS040068, 1R01NS077946), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000114), the CHDI Foundation awards to the University of Iowa, and the NIH support of the phenotyping performed by CIDR. We thank the University of Iowa, the Investigators and Coordinators of the Huntington Study Group, the study participants, the National Research Roster for Huntington Disease Patients and Families, and the Huntington’s Disease Society of America. We acknowledge the assistance of Jeffrey D. Long, Hans J. Johnson, and Jeremy H. Bockholt. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. HDQLIFE Site Investigators and Coordinators: Praveen Dayalu, Amy Austin (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI); Courtney Shadrick, Amanda Miller (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA); Kimberly Quaid, Melissa Wesson (Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN); Christopher Ross, Gregory Churchill, Mary Jane Ong (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD); Susan Perlman, Brian Clemente (University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA); Michael McCormack, Humberto Marin, Allison Dicke (Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ); Joel Perlmutter, Stacey Barton, Shineeka Smith (Washington University, St. Louis, MO); Martha Nance, Pat Ede (Struthers Parkinson’s Center); Anwar Ahmed, Christine Reece, Lyla Mourany (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH); Michael Geschwind, Joseph Winer (University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA).
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 47.Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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