Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2010 Jan 26;19(1):1–17. doi: 10.1002/mpr.299

Measuring disability across cultures — the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low‐ and middle‐income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population‐based survey

Renata M Sousa 1,✉, Michael E Dewey 1, Daisy Acosta 2, AT Jotheeswaran 3, Erico Castro‐Costa 1, Cleusa P Ferri 1, Mariella Guerra 4, Yueqin Huang 5, KS Jacob 6, Juana Guillermina Rodriguez Pichardo 7, Nayeli Garcia Ramírez 8, Juan Llibre Rodriguez 9, Marina Calvo Rodriguez 9, Aquiles Salas 10, Ana Luisa Sosa 8, Joseph Williams 11, Martin J Prince 1
PMCID: PMC2896722  PMID: 20104493

Abstract

We evaluated the psychometric properties of the 12‐item interviewer‐administered screener version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule – version II (WHODAS II) among older people living in seven low‐ and middle‐income countries. Principal component analysis (PCA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Mokken analyses were carried out to test for unidimensionality, hierarchical structure, and measurement invariance across 10/66 Dementia Research Group sites.

PCA generated a one‐factor solution in most sites. In CFA, the two‐factor solution generated in Dominican Republic fitted better for all sites other than rural China. The two factors were not easily interpretable, and may have been an artefact of differing item difficulties. Strong internal consistency and high factor loadings for the one‐factor solution supported unidimensionality. Furthermore, the WHODAS II was found to be a ‘strong’ Mokken scale. Measurement invariance was supported by the similarity of factor loadings across sites, and by the high between‐site correlations in item difficulties.

The Mokken results strongly support that the WHODAS II 12‐item screener is a unidimensional and hierarchical scale confirming to item response theory (IRT) principles, at least at the monotone homogeneity model level. More work is needed to assess the generalizability of our findings to different populations. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: disability, elderly, developing countries, WHODAS II, psychometric properties

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (293.2 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. Akaike H. (1987) Factor Analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron M., Schieir O., Hudson M., Steele R., Kolahi S., Berkson L., Couture F., Fitzcharles M.A., Gagne M., Garfield B., Gutkowski A., Kang H., Kapusta M., Ligier S., Mathieu J.P., Menard H., Starr M., Stein M., Zummer M. (2008) The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 59(3), 382–390, DOI: 10.1002/art.23314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Browne M. (1990) MUTMUM PC: User's Guide, Ohio State University. [Google Scholar]
  4. Buist‐Bouwman M.A., Ormel J., De Graff R., Vilagut G., Alonso J., Van Sonderen E., Vollebergh W.A. (2008) Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(4), 185–197, DOI: 10.1002/mpr.261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. (1998) Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information‐theoretic Approach, Springer‐Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  6. Castro‐Costa E., Dewey M., Stewart R., Banerjee S., Huppert F., Mendonca‐Lima C., Bula C., Reisches F., Wancata J., Ritchie K., Tsolaki M., Mateos R., Prince M. (2008) Ascertaining late‐life depressive symptoms in Europe: An evaluation of the survey version of the EURO‐D scale in 10 nations. The SHARE project. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(1), 12–29, DOI: 10.1002/mpr.236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chavez L.M., Canino G., Negron G., Shrout P.E., Matias‐Carrelo L.E., Guilar‐Gaxiola S., Hoppe S. (2005) 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. Mental Health Services Research, 7(3), 145–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chisolm T.H., Abrams H.B., McArdle R., Wilson R.H., Doyle P.J. (2005) The WHO‐DAS II: Psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends in Amplification, 9(3), 111–126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chopra P.K., Couper J.W., Herrman H. (2004) The assessment of patients with long‐term psychotic disorders: Application of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(9), 753–759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chwastiak L.A., Von Korff M. (2003) Disability in depression and back pain: Evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS II) in a primary care setting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(6), 507–514, DOI: 10.1016/S0895‐4356(03)00051‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dijkstra A., Buist G., Moorer P., Dassen T. (1999) Construct validity of the Nursing Care Dependency Scale. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 8(4), 380–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunn G., Everitt B., Pickles A. (1993) Modelling Covariances and Latent Variables using EQS, Chapman & Hall. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gillespie M., Tenvergert E., Kingma J. (1987) Using Mokken scale analysis to develop unidimensional scales. Do the six abortion items in the NORC GSS form one or two scales? Quality Quant, 21, 393–408. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hattie J. (1985) Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hudson M., Steele R., Taillefer S., Baron M., Canadian S.R. (2008) Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 59(2), 270–278, DOI: 10.1002/art.23343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Joreskog K., Sorbom D. (1993) New Features in PRELIS 2. Chicago University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Joreskog K. (1994) On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 59(3), 381–389. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim J.M., Stewart R., Glozier N., Prince M., Kim S.W., Yang S.J., Shin I.S., Yoon J.S. (2005) Physical health, depression and cognitive function as correlates of disability in an older Korean population. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(2), 160–167, DOI: 10.1002/gps.1266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Leon A.C., Olfson M., Portera L., Farber L., Sheehan D.V. (1997) Assessing psychiatric impairment in primary care with the Sheehan Disability Scale. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 27(2), 93–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Llibre Rodriguez J.J., Ferri C.P., Acosta D., Guerra M., Huang Y., Jacob K.S., Krishnamoorthy E.S., Salas A., Sosa A.L., Acosta I., Dewey M.E., Gaona C., Jotheeswaran A.T., Li S., Rodriguez D., Rodriguez G., Kumar P.S., Valhuerdi A., Prince M., Dementia Research Group . (2008) Prevalence of dementia in Latin America, India, and China: a population‐based cross‐sectional survey. Lancet, 372(9637), 464–474, DOI: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(08)61002‐8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Marsh H., Balla J., Hau K. (1996) An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties In: Advanced Structural Equation Modelling: Issues and Techniques (eds Marcoulides G, Schumacker R.), pp. 315–355, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  22. McKibbin C., Patterson T.L., Jeste D.V. (2004) Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: results from the WHODAS‐II. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(6): 405–413, DOI: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000130133.32276.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mogga S., Prince M., Alem A., Kebede D., Stewart R., Glozier N., Hotopf M. (2006) Outcome of major depression in Ethiopia: population‐based study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 241–246, DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.013417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mokken R. (1971) Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis, Mouton & Co. [Google Scholar]
  25. Molenaar A.W., Sijtsma K. (2000) User's Manual MSP5 for Windows, iecProGAMMA. [Google Scholar]
  26. Murray C.J.L., Lopez A.D. (1996) The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020, Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Norton J., de Roquefeuil G., Benjamins A., Boulenger J.P., Mann A. (2004) Psychiatric morbidity, disability and service use amongst primary care attenders in France. European Psychiatry, 19(3), 164–167, DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2003.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Perini S.J., Slade T., Andrews G. 2006. Generic effectiveness measures: Sensitivity to symptom change in anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 90(2–3), 123–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Posl M., Cieza A., Stucki G. (2007) Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Quality of Life Research, 16(9), 1521–1531, DOI: 10.1007/s11136‐007‐9259‐4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Prince M.J., de Rodriguez J.L., Noriega L., Lopez A., Acosta D., Albanese E., Arizaga R., Copeland J.R., Dewey M., Ferri C.P., Guerra M., Huang Y., Jacob K.S., Krishnamoorthy E.S., McKeigue P., Sousa R., Stewart R.J., Salas A., Sosa A.L., Uwakwa R., Dementia Research Group . (2008a) The 10/66 Dementia Research Group's fully operationalised DSM‐IV dementia computerized diagnostic algorithm, compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm and a clinician diagnosis:A population validation study. BMC Public Health, 8, 219, DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2458‐8‐219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Prince M., Acosta D., Albanese E., Arizaga R., Ferri C.P., Guerra M., Huang Y., Jacob K.S., Jimenez‐Velazquez I.Z., Rodriguez J.L., Salas A., Sosa A.L., Sousa R., Uwakwe R., van der Poel R., Williams J., Wortmann M. (2008b) Ageing and dementia in low and middle income countries – using research to engage with public and policy makers. International Review of Psychiatry, 20(4), 332–343, DOI: 10.1080/09540260802094712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. R Development Core Team . (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rehm J., Ustun T.B., Saxena S. (1999) On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110–122. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sijtsma K., Emons W.H., Bouwmeester S., Nyklicek I., Roorda L.D. (2008) Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality‐of‐Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality‐of‐Life Scale (WHOQOL‐Bref) Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 275–290, DOI: 10.1007/s11136‐007‐9281‐6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sijtsma K., Hemker B.T. (2000) A taxonomy of IRT models for ordering persons and items using simple sum scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25(4), 391–415, DOI: 10.3102/10769986025004391. [Google Scholar]
  36. SPSS Inc . (2003) Amos 5.0, SPSS Inc. [Google Scholar]
  37. SPSS Inc . (2005) SPSS for Windows, Rel. 15.0, SPSS Inc. [Google Scholar]
  38. Stata Corporation . (2007) Stata Statistical Software: Release 10.0, Stata Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tucker L., Lewis C. (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  40. United Nations . (2007) World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision, Highlights, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van der Ark L.A., Croon M.A., Sijtsma K. (2007) Possibilities and challenges in Mokken scale analysis using marginal models In: New Trends in Psychometrics (eds Shigemasu K, Okada A., Imaizumi T., Hoshino T.), Universal Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. van Tubergen A., Landewe R., Heuft‐Dorenbosch L., Spoorenberg A., Van der Heijde D., Van Der Tempel H., Van Der Linden S. 2003. Assessment of disability with the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 62(2), 140–145, DOI: 10.1136/ard.62.2.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Von Korff M., Crane P.K., Alonso J., Vilagut G., Angermeyer M.C., Bruffaerts R., de Girolamo G., Gureje O., De Graaf R., Huang Y., Iwata N., Karam E.G., Kovess V., Lara C., Levinson D., Posada‐Villa J., Scott K.M., Ormel J. (2008) Modified WHODAS‐II provides valid measure of global disability but filter items increased skewness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(11), 1132–1143, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.12.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. World Health Organization (WHO) . (2001a) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), WHO. [Google Scholar]
  45. World Health Organization (WHO) . (2001b) WHODAS II Disability Assessment Schedule http://who.int/icidh/whodas/index.html, accessed 7 July 2008.

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES