Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Back Pain | Research article

World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain

Authors: Chinonso Nwamaka Igwesi-Chidobe, Sheila Kitchen, Isaac Olubunmi Sorinola, Emma Louise Godfrey

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Globally, the leading cause of years lived with disability is low back pain (LBP). Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is responsible for most of the cost and disability associated with LBP. This is more devastating in low income countries, particularly in rural Nigeria with one of the greatest global burdens of LBP. No Igbo back pain specific measure captures remunerative or non-remunerative work outcomes. Disability measurement using these tools may not fully explain work-related disability and community participation, a limitation not evident in the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the WHODAS 2.0 and validate it in rural and urban Nigerian populations with CLBP.

Methods

Translation, cultural adaptation, test–retest, and cross-sectional psychometric testing was performed. WHODAS 2.0 was forward and back translated by clinical/non-clinical translators. Expert review committee evaluated the translations. Twelve people with CLBP in a rural Nigerian community piloted/pre-tested the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha assessing internal consistency; intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman plots assessing test–retest reliability; and minimal detectable change were investigated in a convenience sample of 50 adults with CLBP in rural and urban Nigeria. Construct validity was examined using Spearman’s correlation analyses with the back-performance scale, Igbo Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and eleven-point box scale; and exploratory factor analysis in a random sample of 200 adults with CLBP in rural Nigeria. Ceiling and floor effects were investigated in both samples.

Results

Patient instructions were also translated. ‘Waist pain/lower back pain’ was added to ‘illness(es)’ to make the measure relevant for this study whilst allowing for future studies involving other conditions. The Igbo phrase for ‘family and friends’ was used to better represent ‘people close to you’ in item D4.3. The Igbo-WHODAS had good internal consistency (α = 0.75–0.97); intra class correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.81–0.93); standard error of measurements (5.05–11.10) and minimal detectable change (13.99–30.77). Igbo-WHODAS correlated moderately with performance-based disability, self-reported back pain-specific disability and pain intensity, with a seven-factor structure and no floor and ceiling effects.

Conclusions

Igbo-WHODAS appears psychometrically sound. Its research and clinical utility require further testing.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Latham NK, Mehta V, Nguyen AM, Jette AM, Olarsch S, Papanicolaou D, et al. Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(11):2146–55.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Igwesi-Chidobe CN, Obiekwe C, Sorinola IO, Godfrey EL. Assessing self-reported disability in a low-literate population with chronic low back pain: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of Igbo Roland Morris disability questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(8):948–57.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Brockow T, Cieza A, Kuhlow H, Sigl T, Franke T, Harder M, et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on musculoskeletal disorders and chronic widespread pain using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(1):30–6.CrossRef
4.
Sigl T, Cieza A, Brockow T, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Clin J Pain. 2006;22(2):147–53.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. ISBN 978 92 4 154759 8 (NLM classification: W 15).
6.
Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, Luciano JV. World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2347–80.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gureje O, Makanjuola VA, Kola L. Insomnia and role impairment in the community. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42(6):495–501.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of life research. 2010;19(4):539–49.
9.
Igwesi-Chidobe CN, Kitchen S, Sorinola IO, Godfrey EL. “A life of living death”: the experiences of people living with chronic low back pain in rural Nigeria. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(8):779–90.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRef
11.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Heal. 2005;8(2):94–104.CrossRef
12.
13.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
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):262–72.PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Strand LI, Moe-Nilssen R, Ljunggren AE. Back performance scale for the assessment of mobility-related activities in people with back pain. Phys Ther. 2002;82(12):1213–23.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Magnussen L, Strand LI, Lygren H. Reliability and validity of the back performance scale: observing activity limitation in patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(8):903–7.CrossRef
20.
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short-form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form-36 bodily pain scale (sf). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(S11):S240–52.CrossRef
21.
Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):141–51.CrossRef
22.
23.
Emenanjo EN. A grammar of contemporary Igbo: constituents, features and processes. M & J Grand Orbit Communications; 2016.
24.
Silveira C, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC, de Camargo RS, Costa ML, Zanardi DM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) into Portuguese. Rev da Assoc Médica Bras (English Ed). 2013;59(3):234–40.CrossRef
25.
Chiu T-Y, Yen C-F, Chou C-H, Lin J-D, Hwang A-W, Liao H-F, et al. Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 36–item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(11):2812–20.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, Lauriola M, Olivetti BM. World Health Organisation disability assessment schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(7):553–64.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY: World Health Organization; 2007.
29.
Oliver M. Defining impairment and disability: issues at stake. In disability and equality law: Routledge; 2017. p. 3–18.
30.
Bean JF, Ölveczky DD, Kiely DK, LaRose SI, Jette AM. Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors? Phys Ther. 2011;91(12):1804–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Igwesi-Chidobe CN, Sorinola IO, Kitchen S, Godfrey EL. Unconventional practitioners’ causal beliefs and treatment strategies for chronic low Back pain in rural Nigeria. Heal Serv Insights. 2018;11:1178632918808783.
32.
33.
34.
Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P. A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(1):45–52.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3(1):1–7.CrossRef
37.
Borsa JC, Damasio BF, Bandeira DR. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto): cadernos de psicologia e educação. 2012;22(53):423–32.CrossRef
38.
Atkinson TM, Rosenfeld BD, Sit L, Mendoza TR, Fruscione M, Lavene D, et al. Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the brief pain inventory (BPI). J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41(3):558–65.CrossRef
39.
Dunteman GH. Principal components analysis: Sage; 1989.
40.
Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2013;9(2):79–94.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain
Authors
Chinonso Nwamaka Igwesi-Chidobe
Sheila Kitchen
Isaac Olubunmi Sorinola
Emma Louise Godfrey
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03763-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Arthroscopic all-inside repair with suture hook for horizontal tear of the lateral meniscus at the popliteal hiatus region: a preliminary report

Research article

Asymmetrical vertebral column decancellation for the management of rigid congenital kyphoscoliosis

Research article

Association between pelvic obliquity and scoliosis, hip displacement and asymmetric hip abduction in children with cerebral palsy: a cross-sectional registry study

Research article

Range of abduction in patients with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease – a nationwide register-based cohort study

Research article

Modeling the effect of static stretching and strengthening exercise in lengthened position on balance in low back pain subject with shortened hamstring: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Study protocol

Human adipose-derived Mesenchymal stem cells, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, or their combination for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a first-in-man randomized controlled trial