What Score in WHODAS 2.0 12-Item Interviewer Version Corresponds to 40 % Psychiatric Disability? A Comparative Study Against IDEAS

  • Chethan Basavarajappa
  • Kailash Suresh Kumar
  • Vedalaveni Chowdappa Suresh
  • Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar
  • Vinutha Ravishankar
  • Umamaheswari Vanamoorthy
  • Urvakhsh Mehta
  • Avinash Waghmare
  • Sivakumar Thanapal
Original Article

Abstract

World Health Organization (WHO) has developed WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in line with International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to assess disability across cultures and diseases. Universal usage of this instrument will synchronize disability data across various countries and help in international comparison. In this study, we sought to find out the cut-off point in WHODAS 2.0 12-item Interviewer Version that corresponds to the global score of 7 on Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS). This cut-off on IDEAS denotes 40 % disability, making patients eligible for social welfare benefits. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that a score of 23 on WHODAS 2.0 12-item Interviewer Version corresponded to the global IDEAS score of 7 on using the Youden’s J static. Additionally, ROC curve showed that WHODAS is an accurate test to measure psychiatric disability.

Keywords

Disability evaluation Disability assessment IDEAS WHODAS 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J, editors. Measuring health and disability: manual for who disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: WHO; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, Nieto M, Chatterji S, Vilagut G, Alonso J, Cieza A, Svetskova O, Burger H, Racca V. Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chopra PK, Couper JW, Herrman H. The assessment of patients with long-term psychotic disorders: application of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II. Aust NZ J Psychiatry. 2004;38:753–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKibbin C, Patterson TL, Jeste DV. Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: results from the WHODAS-II. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004;192:405–13. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000130133.32276.83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M, Steele R, Kolahi S, Berkson L, Couture F, Fitzcharles MA, Gagne M, Garfield B, Gutkowski A, Kang H, Kapusta M, Ligier S, Mathieu JP, Menard H, Starr M, Stein M, Zummer M. The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:382–90. doi:10.1002/art.23314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Tubergen A, Landewe R, Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Spoorenberg A, van der HD, van der TH, van der LS. Assessment of disability with the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:140–5. doi:10.1136/ard.62.2.140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chwastiak LA, Von Korff M. Disability in depression and back pain: evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS II) in a primary care setting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:507–14. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00051-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hudson M, Steele R, Taillefer S, Baron M. Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:270–8. doi:10.1002/art.23343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, Poppendick U, Moller C, Wallesch CW. Use of the WHODAS II with stroke patients and their relatives: reliability and inter-rater-reliability. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2008;47:31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, McArdle R, Wilson RH, Doyle PJ. The WHO-DAS II: psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends Amplif. 2005;9:111–26. doi:10.1177/108471380500900303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Posl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1521–31. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Health Portal India. Categories for Adoption of Standards. 2015. http://www.nhp.gov.in/categories-for-adoption-of-standards_mtl. Accessed 11 Apr 2016.
  15. 15.
    Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale: guidelines for evaluation and assessment of mental illness and procedure for certification. No. 16-18/97-NI. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. 2002. http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/page.php?s=reg&t=pb&p=guide_mental. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  16. 16.
    Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Guidelines for evaluation and assessment of mental illness and procedure for certification. (No. 1618/97-NI) 2002. http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/page.php?s=reg&p=guide_mental&t=pb. Accessed 7 Feb 2016.
  17. 17.
    Bhargava R, Sivakumar T, Rozatkar A. Persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) act, 1995. In: Chavan BS, Gupta N, Arun P, Sidana A, Jadhav S, editors. Community mental health in India. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers’ Medical Publishers (P) limited; 2012. p. 169–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grover S, Shah R, Kulhara P, Malhotra R. Internal consistency & validity of Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS) in patients with schizophrenia. Indian J Med Res. 2014;140(5):637–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfaff B, Darrington J, Stover J, Satman MH, Beckmann F. GNU PSPP statistical analysis software, release 0.9.0-g745ee3. Boston: Free Software Foundation Inc; 2007.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tape TG. Introduction to ROC curves. http://gim.unmc.edu/dxtests/ROC1.htm. Accessed 7 Mar 2014.
  21. 21.
    Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Casp J Intern Med. 2013;4(2):627–35.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The inconsistency of “optimal” cut-points using two ROC based criteria. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(7):670–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32–5. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32:aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thara R. Measurement of psychiatric disability. Indian J Med Res. 2005;121(6):723–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thara R, Rajkumar S, Valecha V. The schedule for assessment of psychiatric disability—a modification of the DAS-II. Indian J Psychiatry. 1988;30:47–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kostanjsek N. Use of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health information systems. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(4):S3. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-S4-S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Francescutti C, Frattura L, Troiano R, Gongolo F, Martinuzzi A, Sala M, Meucci P, Raggi A, Russo E, Buffoni M, Gorini G, Conclave M, Pietrangeli A, Solipaca A, Leonardi M. Towards a common disability assessment framework: theoretical and methodological issues for providing public services and benefits using ICF. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(1):S8–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Raggi A, Sala M, Guzzon P, Valsecchi MR, Fusaro G, Russo E, Francescutti C, Nocentini U, Martinuzzi A. Training on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): the ICF-DIN Basic and the ICF-DIN Advanced Course developed by the Disability Italian Network. J Headache Pain. 2005;6(3):159–64. doi:10.1007/s10194-005-0173-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Konecky B, Meyer EC, Marx BP, Kimbrel NA, Morissette SB. Using the WHODAS 2.0 to assess functional disability associated with DSM-5 mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(8):818–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, Von Korff M, Ustun TB. Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(12):e8343.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India Pvt. Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chethan Basavarajappa
    • 1
  • Kailash Suresh Kumar
    • 2
  • Vedalaveni Chowdappa Suresh
    • 2
  • Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar
    • 2
  • Vinutha Ravishankar
    • 2
  • Umamaheswari Vanamoorthy
    • 2
  • Urvakhsh Mehta
    • 2
  • Avinash Waghmare
    • 1
  • Sivakumar Thanapal
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, Department of PsychiatryNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS)BengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS)BengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations