Floor and ceiling effects of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Katajapuu, Niina; Laimi, Katri; Heinonen, Ari; Saltychev, Mikhail

doi:10.1097/mrr.0000000000000339

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 A substantial floor effect of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 has been seen in two studies. 21,22 All these previous findings may explain the high estimates of minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change seen in the present study. Further research in different populations is recommended.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study is to estimate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and a minimal detectable change (MDC) of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Design: Cross-sectional cohort study. Setting: Outpatient Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine clinic. Subjects: A total of 1988 consecutive patients with musculoskeletal pain. Interventions: A distribution-based approach was employed to estimate a minimal clinically important difference, a minimal detectable change, and a minimal detectable percent change (MDC%). Results: The mean age of the patients was 48 years, and 65% were women. The average intensity of pain was 6,3 (2.0) points (0–10 numeric rating scale) and the mean WHODAS 2.0 total score was 13 (9) points out of 48. The minimal clinically important difference ranged between 3.1 and 4.7 points. The minimal detectable change was 8.6 points and minimal detectable % change was unacceptably high 66%. Conclusions: Amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 demonstrated a high minimal detectable change of almost nine points. As the minimal detectable change exceeded the level of minimal clinically important difference, nine points were considered to be the amount of change perceived by a respondent as clinically significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the cross-sectional analysis of society without identified specific health problems, the tool can detect unobvious functional limitations. Katajapuu et al affirmed a similar floor effect from 15 to 79% and no ceiling effect in a population of 2000 people with chronic musculoskeletal pain associated with mild or no disability [ 39 ]. Regarding several previous studies, floor effects were also detected for the WHODAS 2.0 domains or the overall score [ 4 , 40 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The assessment of disability in a population is an important part of public health management. In this article, we examine the psychometric properties and validation of the Polish version of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. (12-item WHODAS 2.0). Methods: A systematic random sample comprised 584 adult urban residents. The Polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire were used to assess disability and quality of life, respectively. Basic sociodemographic data and selected healthrelated data (e.g., pain and depressive moods) were also collected. Results: Good scale score reliability for the entire tool was confirmed in the study population (Cronbach's α = 0.90; Composite reliability = 0.95). In confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), satisfactory values of the fit indices were obtained (comparative fit index, CFI = 0.999; Tucker-Lewis Index, TLI = 0.999; root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = 0.004; standardized root mean square residual, SRMR = 0.043, p = 0.454). Good consistency was noted over time (correlation coefficient = 0.88). The tool was found to have an appropriate level of validity. Conclusions: We found that the 12-item WHODAS is short and easy to use, and it is suitable for use in the form of an interview during screening tests. This tool is appropriate for measuring the health status, functioning, and disability of an average population. It may be more relevant for studying populations with health problems. The 12item WHODAS can be used to successfully obtain information about the general level of disability in a population.

show abstract

“…Descriptive statistics were generated for the demographic data, eHLQ scores, and floor and ceiling effects. The presence of floor and ceiling effects may indicate poor discrimination at the minimum or maximum values [ 33 ], with effects considered significant if over 15% of participants score in the top (ceiling) or bottom (floor) of a score range [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity Evidence of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) Part 2: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Test Content, Response Process, and Internal Structure in the Australian Community Health Setting

Cheng¹,

Elsworth²,

Osborne³

2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digital technologies have changed how we manage our health, and eHealth literacy is needed to engage with health technologies. Any eHealth strategy would be ineffective if users’ eHealth literacy needs are not addressed. A robust measure of eHealth literacy is essential for understanding these needs. On the basis of the eHealth Literacy Framework, which identified 7 dimensions of eHealth literacy, the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) was developed. The tool has demonstrated robust psychometric properties in the Danish setting, but validity testing should be an ongoing and accumulative process. Objective This study aims to evaluate validity evidence based on test content, response process, and internal structure of the eHLQ in the Australian community health setting. Methods A mixed methods approach was used with cognitive interviewing conducted to examine evidence on test content and response process, whereas a cross-sectional survey was undertaken for evidence on internal structure. Data were collected at 3 diverse community health sites in Victoria, Australia. Psychometric testing included both the classical test theory and item response theory approaches. Methods included Bayesian structural equation modeling for confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and test-retest for reliability, and the Bayesian multiple-indicators, multiple-causes model for testing of differential item functioning. Results Cognitive interviewing identified only 1 confusing term, which was clarified. All items were easy to read and understood as intended. A total of 525 questionnaires were included for psychometric analysis. All scales were homogenous with composite scale reliability ranging from 0.73 to 0.90. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability for the 7 scales ranged from 0.72 to 0.95. A 7-factor Bayesian structural equation modeling using small variance priors for cross-loadings and residual covariances was fitted to the data, and the model of interest produced a satisfactory fit (posterior productive P=.49, 95% CI for the difference between observed and replicated chi-square values −101.40 to 108.83, prior-posterior productive P=.92). All items loaded on the relevant factor, with loadings ranging from 0.36 to 0.94. No significant cross-loading was found. There was no evidence of differential item functioning for administration format, site area, and health setting. However, discriminant validity was not well established for scales 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Item response theory analysis found that all items provided precise information at different trait levels, except for 1 item. All items demonstrated different sensitivity to different trait levels and represented a range of difficulty levels. Conclusions The evidence suggests that the eHLQ is a tool with robust psychometric properties and further investigation of discriminant validity is recommended. It is ready to be used to identify eHealth literacy strengths and challenges and assist the development of digital health interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind.

show abstract

Floor and ceiling effects of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Abstract: Floor and ceiling effects of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0

Validity Evidence of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) Part 2: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Test Content, Response Process, and Internal Structure in the Australian Community Health Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About