About
Scope & Aims
Editorial office
Editorial board
Reviewers
Ethical standards and procedures
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Articles & Issues
Current issue
Articles in press
Archive
For Authors
General rules
Guide for authors
Templates
Publication charge
For Reviewers
Guide for reviewers
Our reviewers
ORIGINAL PAPER
Measuring health and disability of Ukrainian cadets – translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the WHODAS 2.0
1
Lviv State University of Physical Culture, Lviv, Ukraine
Submission date: 2022-03-28
Acceptance date: 2022-05-10
Publication date: 2022-05-18
Physiother Quart. 2023;31(4):49-56
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire is used internationally to assess disability. The goal was to perform a crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Ukrainian version of the WHODAS 2.0, and examine the tool’s efficacy, particularly for screening studies.
Methods:
The participants of the study were cadets (n = 256, age = 18–21 years). This study used the Ukrainian versions of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (36 items, self-administered, WHODAS) and the Medical Outcomes Study: 36-Item Short Form Survey (MOS SF-36). The WHODAS was translated according to the WHO protocol. The level of disability, quality of life, and complaints of injuries and pain during training were assessed.
Results:
The WHODAS was translated into Ukrainian. The overall score of the WHODAS questionnaire correlates with the values of the MOS SF-36 questionnaire scales. Numerous negative, moderate or significant correlations were found between virtually all MOS SF-36 questionnaire scales and WHODAS domains. The strength and number of correlations in the study group were lower than in populations with significant health disorders. The level of vitality, fatigue, and low efficiency were critical for the respondents.
Conclusions:
The Ukrainian version of the 36-item WHODAS questionnaire is easy to use and is suitable for use in the form of interviews to assess the health, functioning, and disability of the general population. This tool will contribute to the more effective clinical practice of clinical professionals, in particular in rehabilitation, and will enable the integration of research results related to the assessment of the level of disability at the national and international levels.
The WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire is used internationally to assess disability. The goal was to perform a crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Ukrainian version of the WHODAS 2.0, and examine the tool’s efficacy, particularly for screening studies.
Methods:
The participants of the study were cadets (n = 256, age = 18–21 years). This study used the Ukrainian versions of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (36 items, self-administered, WHODAS) and the Medical Outcomes Study: 36-Item Short Form Survey (MOS SF-36). The WHODAS was translated according to the WHO protocol. The level of disability, quality of life, and complaints of injuries and pain during training were assessed.
Results:
The WHODAS was translated into Ukrainian. The overall score of the WHODAS questionnaire correlates with the values of the MOS SF-36 questionnaire scales. Numerous negative, moderate or significant correlations were found between virtually all MOS SF-36 questionnaire scales and WHODAS domains. The strength and number of correlations in the study group were lower than in populations with significant health disorders. The level of vitality, fatigue, and low efficiency were critical for the respondents.
Conclusions:
The Ukrainian version of the 36-item WHODAS questionnaire is easy to use and is suitable for use in the form of interviews to assess the health, functioning, and disability of the general population. This tool will contribute to the more effective clinical practice of clinical professionals, in particular in rehabilitation, and will enable the integration of research results related to the assessment of the level of disability at the national and international levels.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Tymruk-Skoropad K. Approaches to the use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability of Life and Health in the practice of physical therapy of persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Sports science of Ukraine 2017;5:46–53. Available from: https://repository.ldufk.edu.u... [10.10.2023].
2.
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; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008343.
3.
Silva C, Coleta I, Silva AG, Amaro A, Alvarelhão J, Queirós A, et al. Adaptation and validation of WHODAS 2.0 in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Rev Saude Publica 2013;47(4):752–758; doi: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047004374.
4.
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.
5.
Chang K-H, Liao H-F, Yen C-F, Yen C-F, Hwang A-W, Chi W-C, Escorpizo R, et al. Association between muscle power impairment and WHODAS 2.0 in older adults with physical disability in Taiwan. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(8):712–720; doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.940428.
6.
Zhao HP, Liu Y, Li HL, Ma L, Zhang YJ, Wang J. Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:897–906; doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0212-9.
7.
Risal A, Kunwar D, Karki E, Adhikari S, Bimali I, Shrestha B, et al. Adapting World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Nepal. BMC Psychol. 2021;9:45; doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00550-5.
8.
Hu L, Zang Y-L, Li N. The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 in adolescents in China. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(17–18):2438–2451; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04126.x.
9.
Midhage R, Hermansson L, Söderberg P, Tungström S, Nordenskjöld A, Svanborg C, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory. Nord J Psychiatry. 2021;75(7):494–501; doi: 10.1080/08039488.2021.1897162.
10.
Silveira C, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC, Andreucci CB, Angelini CR, Ferreira EC, et al. Validation of the 36-item version of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for assessing women’s disability and functioning associated with maternal morbidity. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017;39(2):44–52; doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1598599.
11.
Kirchberger I, Braitmayer K, Coenen M, Oberhauser C, Meisinger C. 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. Popul Health Metrics. 2014;12:27; doi: 10.1186/s12963-014-0027-8.
12.
Sri Y, Muslih M, Sim J, Vidyanti A, Brahmadhi A, Tsai H. Development and validation of the World Health Organization disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) Indonesian version in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil. 2021; 44(16):4459-4466; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1900413.
13.
Brasil AMB, Brasil F, Maurício AA, Vilela RM. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation to Brazil of the Obesity-related Problems Scale. Einstein. 2017;15(3):327–333; doi: 10.1590/s1679-45082017ao4004.
14.
Aslan Kunt D, Dereboy F. Validity and Reliability of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in Turkish psychiatry patients and healthy controls. Turk J Psychiatry. 2018;29(4):248–257. Accessed 10 Oct 2023 from: https://www.turkpsikiyatri.com....
15.
Salehi R, Negahban H, Khiavi FF, Saboor S, Majdinasab N, Shakhi K. 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; doi: 10.4082/kjfm.18.0155.
16.
Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Bejer A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, de Sire A, Spalek R, 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):7284:1–17; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197284.
17.
Huang S-W, Chang K-H, Escorpizo R, Chang F-H, Liou T-H. WHODAS 2.0 Can Predict Institutionalization among Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(9):1484; doi: 10.3390/ijerph16091484.
18.
Bejer A, Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Spalek R, de Sire A, et al. Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:2415–2427; doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02806-4.
19.
Badu E, Mitchell R, O’Brien AP, Osei A, Rubin M. Measuring disability in consumers of mental health services – psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in Ghana. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021;30(5):1274–1288; doi: 10.1111/inm.12911.
20.
Igwesi-Chidobe C, Kitchen S, Sorinola I, Godfrey E. World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):755; doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03763-8.
21.
Üstün T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
22.
WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Who.int. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/standards/... [12.12.2021].
23.
World Health Organisation. WHO Short Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). In: Multiaxial Present ICD-10 for Use in Adult Psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997; 125–126; doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511759055.
24.
Tymruk-Skoropad K, Pavlova I, Sydoryk N, Kulitka Y, Kruk B. Assessment of disease-related knowledge among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study. Phys Act Rev. 2020;8(2):72–85; doi: 10.16926/par.2020.08.24.
25.
Mayrink J, Souza RT, Silveira C, Guida JP, Costa ML, Parpinelli MA, et al. Reference ranges of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) score and diagnostic validity of its 12-item version in identifying altered functioning in healthy postpartum women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141:48(Suppl 1):48–54; doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12466.
26.
Gaskin CJ, Lambert SD, Bowe SJ, Orellana L. Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: Implications for the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:40:1–9; doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0309-5.
27.
Saltychev M, Bärlund E, Mattie R, McCormick Z, Paltamaa J, Laimi K. A study of the psychometric properties of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in a large population of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(2):262–272; doi: 10.1177/0269215516631385.
28.
Goldberg J, Magruder KM, Forsberg CW, Kazis LE, Ustün TB, Friedman MJ, et al. The association of PTSD with physical and mental health functioning and disability (VA Cooperative Study #569: the course and consequences of posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam-era veteran twins). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1579–1591; doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0585-4.
29.
Marx BP, Wolf EJ, Cornette MM, Schnurr PP, Rosen MI, Friedman MJ, et al. Using the WHODAS 2.0 to Assess Functioning Among Veterans Seeking Compensation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(12):1312–1317; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400400.
30.
Schumm JA, Gore WL, Chard KM, Meyer EC. Examination of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment System as a measure of disability severity among veterans receiving cognitive processing therapy. J Trauma Stress. 2017;30(6):704–709; doi: 10.1002/jts.22243.
31.
Sexton MB, Davis MT, Lusk RK, Lyubkin M, Chermack ST. A factor analytic evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among veterans presenting to a generalist mental health clinic. Psychiatry Res. 2019;272:638–642; doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.008.
32.
Denby E, Murphy D, Busuttil W, Sakel M, Wilkinson D. Neuropsychiatric outcomes in UK military veterans with mild traumatic brain injury and vestibular dysfunction. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2020;35(1):57–65; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000468.
33.
Jain S, Ortigo K, Gimeno J, Baldor DA, Weiss BJ, Cloitre M, et al. A Randomized controlled trial of brief Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR) for veterans in primary care. J Trauma Stress. 2020;33(4):401–409; doi: 10.1002/jts.22523.
34.
Herrold AA, Kletzel SL, Mallinson T, Bender Pape TL, Weaver JA, Guernonet A, al. Psychometric measurement properties of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) evaluated among veterans with mild traumatic brain injury and behavioral health conditions. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(9):1313–1322; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1660914.
35.
Stika MM, Riordan P, Aaronson A, Herrold AA, Ellison RL, Kletzel S, Cognition and other predictors of functional disability among veterans with mild traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2021;36:44–55; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000611.
36.
Ortenburger D, Mosler D, Pavlova I, Wąsik J. Social support and dietary habits as anxiety level predictors of students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8785; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168785.
37.
Ochnik D, Rogowska AM, Kuśnierz C, Jakubiak M, Wierzbik-Strońska M, Schütz A, et al. Exposure to COVID-19 during the first and the second wave of the pandemic and coronavirus-related PTSD Risk among university students from six countries – a repeated cross-sectional study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(23):5564; doi: 10.3390/jcm10235564.
38.
Pavlova I, Zikrach D, Mosler D, Ortenburger D, Góra T, Wąsik J. Determinants of anxiety levels among young males in a threat of experiencing military conflict – Applying a machine-learning algorithm in a psychosociological study. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239749; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239749.
39.
Pavlova I, Zikrach D, Shvets V, Petrytsa P, Ortenburger D, Langfort J. Profiles of academic motivation and wellbeing of physical education and sports instructors of internal affairs establishments: a person-centered approach based on self-determination theory. Phys Act Rev. 2022;10(2):1–11; doi: 10.16926/par.2022.10.16.
40.
Lee HH, Shin E-K, Shin H-I, Yang EJ. Is WHODAS 2.0 useful for colorectal cancer survivors? Ann Rehabil Med. 2017;41:667; doi: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.4.667.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
