Normative Data for the 12 Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0

Abstract

BackgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) measures disability due to health conditions including diseases, illnesses, injuries, mental or emotional problems, and problems with alcohol or drugs.MethodThe 12 Item WHODAS 2.0 was used in the second Australian Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. We report the overall factor structure and the distribution of scores and normative data (means and SDs) for people with any physical disorder, any mental disorder and for people with neither.FindingsA single second order factor justifies the use of the scale as a measure of global disability. People with mental disorders had high scores (mean 6.3, SD 7.1), people with physical disorders had lower scores (mean 4.3, SD 6.1). People with no disorder covered by the survey had low scores (mean 1.4, SD 3.6).InterpretationThe provision of normative data from a population sample of adults will facilitate use of the WHODAS 2.0 12 item scale in clinical and epidemiological research.

Feasibility and psychometric properties of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in a population-based sample of patients with myocardial infarction from the MONICA/KORA myocardial infarction registry

“…So far only one paper has reported on the feasibility of the revised WHODAS 2.0 12-item version. In a sample of the Australian general population 0.2% had missing data in one or more WHODAS 2.0 items administered by interview [11]. However, these results are hardly comparable with our study as they differ regarding the mode of administration (interview versus self-administered) and characteristics of the study population (age, health status, country of origin) [41].…”

“…Sousa et al [12] examined unidimensionality of the WHODAS 2.0 in elderly people living in seven low-and middle-income countries and showed that principle component analysis gave rise to a one-factor solution in most countries. In the study from Andrews et al [11] a second-order one-factor solution with six first-order factors was the best-fitting model for the Australian general population.…”

“…Moreover, in contrast to the 36-item WHODAS, for the 12-item form studies on its psychometric properties are scarce so far. The available studies are limited to the general population [11], older people [12], and patients with depression [13][14][15].…”

Physiotherapy Interventions and the Outcomes for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Type 1 on the South Island of New Zealand – A Longitudinal, Prospective Case Series

“…This supports the evidence that early diagnosis can improve outcomes [9,25]. Clinically important changes are represented in the QuickDASH as a change of 15 points [26]; WHODAS as 15 [27]; MPQ PRI as 5 with NRS as 3 [28]; FFI as 10 [21]. This sample shows significant clinical improvement across all measures 6 months after commencing physiotherapy.…”

Validation of the Brazilian Version of WHODAS 2.0 in Patients with Mental Disorders: Should the 12-Item Scale be an Alternative to 36-Item Scale in DSM-5?

“…Therefore, the editors of the DSM-5 should consider the WHODAS 2.0 12-item as a sensible alternative to the WHODAS 2.0 36-item scale in new versions of this manual. Furthermore, despite isolated studies with people aged 15 to 17 years [23][24][25] and the release of an unofficial version directed at children and adolescents [26], one limitation of the WHODAS 2.0 is the fact that it is only recommended by the WHO for application in adults [4,5] and, consequently, use of the GAF should not yet be discontinued.…”