Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory

References

• WHO. 2002. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF - The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. WHO/NIH Joint Project, Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallesch CW, Schlote A. WHODAS II – practical and theoretical issues. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(8):685–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, et al. World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2347–2380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Benito J, Abdelhamid GSM, Pino O, et al. Disability in bipolar I disorder: application of Mokken scaling analysis and the graded response model to the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. J Affect Disord. 2020;260:506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoehne A, Giguere CE, Herba CM, et al. Assessing functioning across common mental disorders in psychiatric emergency patients: results from the WHODAS-2: Evaluation du fonctionnement de patients presentant des troubles mentaux courants en milieu psychiatrique: Resultats au WHODAS-2. Can J Psychiatry. 2020. doi: 10.1177/0706743720981200
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhou W, Liu Q, Yu Y, et al. Proxy reliability of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule II among adult patients with mental disorders. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(8):2219–2229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APA. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: APA.
   Google Scholar
• Gold LH. DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(2):173–181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Konecky B, Meyer EC, Marx BP, et al. Using the WHODAS 2.0 to assess functional disability associated with DSM-5 mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(8):818–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axelsson E, Lindsater E, Ljotsson B, et al. The 12-item Self-Report World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 administered via the internet to individuals with anxiety and stress disorders: a psychometric investigation based on data from two clinical trials. JMIR Ment Health. 2017;4(4):e58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheehan DV. 1983. The anxiety disease. New York, NY: Scribne.
   Google Scholar
• Arbuckle R, Frye MA, Brecher M, et al. The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2009;165(1–2):163–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgins DC. Reliability and validity of the Sheehan Disability Scale modified for pathological gambling. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon AC, Olfson M, Portera L, et al. Assessing psychiatric impairment in primary care with the Sheehan Disability Scale. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1997;27(2):93–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörberg N, Kouros I, Ekselius L, et al. The Swedish version of the Sheehan Disability Scale – a valid and brief measure of functioning. Eur J Pers Centered Healthc. 2016;4(1):1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hambrick JP, Turk CL, Heimberg RG, et al. Psychometric properties of disability measures among patients with social anxiety disorder. J Anxiety Disord. 2004;18(6):825–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L-t, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moen VP, Drageset J, Eide GE, et al. Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(2):505–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habtamu K, Alem A, Medhin G, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in people with severe mental disorders in rural Ethiopia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park SH, Demetriou EA, Pepper KL, et al. Validation of the 36-item and 12-item self-report World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 2019;12(7):1101–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavez LM, Canino G, Negron G, et al. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of two mental health outcome measures: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II and Lehman's Quality Of Life Interview. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005;7(3):145–159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Von Korff M, Crane PK, Alonso J, et al. Modified WHODAS-II provides valid measure of global disability but filter items increased skewness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(11):1132–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Zang YL, Li N. The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 in adolescents in China. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(17–18):2438–2451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi R, Negahban H, Khiavi FF, et al. Validity and reliability of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36-item Persian version for persons with multiple sclerosis. Korean J Fam Med. 2020;41(3):195–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cwirlej-Sozanska A, Bejer A, Wisniowska-Szurlej A, et al. Psychometric properties of the polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with low back pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19): 7284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnin CM, Sanchez-Moreno J, Martinez-Aran A, et al. Subthreshold symptoms in bipolar disorder: impact on neurocognition, quality of life and disability. J Affect Disord. 2012;136(3):650–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarvonen-Schroder S, Hurme S, Laimi K. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health versus conventional instruments in subacute stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(9):675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarvonen-Schroder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, et al. Usability of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in chronic traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2018b;50(6):514–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertugrul A, Ulug B. The influence of neurocognitive deficits and symptoms on disability in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;105(3):196–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarvonen-Schroder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, et al. Comparing disability between traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury using the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health. Clin Rehabil. 2018a;32(12):1676–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKibbin C, Patterson TL, Jeste DV. Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: results from the WHODAS-II. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004;192(6):405–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar