280
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Assessment Procedures

Diagnostic accuracy of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) to estimate disability after stroke

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon show all
Pages 2169-2174 | Received 21 Dec 2021, Accepted 15 May 2022, Published online: 07 Jun 2022
 

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze WHODAS 2.0’s diagnostic capacity and accuracy in stroke survivors.

Methods

Cross-sectional methodological study, in which individuals with chronic stroke were evaluated. Disability was considered the outcome variable, being evaluated by WHODAS 2.0; the modified Rankin scale (mRS) was used as the parameter variable. Disability was categorized in two levels being: “No or mild disability” (mRS 0–2) and “Moderate to severe disability” (mRS 3–5). To identify the cutoff point, a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% and considering sensitivity and specificity.

Results

The cutoff point >39.62 proved acceptable for distinguishing individuals with moderate/severe disability from individuals with no or mild disability (≤39.62 points), with 66.22% sensitivity, 72.41% specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) of 45.45%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 84.74%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.747 (CI 95%: 0.65–0.83; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

WHODAS 2.0 demonstrated acceptable diagnostic capacity and the cutoff point of 39.62 proved suitable for distinguishing individuals with moderate/severe disability from those with no or mild disability after stroke.

    Implications for rehabilitation

  • WHODAS 2.0 demonstrated acceptable diagnostic capacity.

  • The WHODAS 2.0 cut-off point of >39.62 allows stratification of post-stroke disability into two different levels (no/mild disability versus moderate/severe disability).

  • These results facilitate clinical decision-making by rehabilitation professionals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was partially supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education of the Ministry of Education, finance code 001.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.