Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2021

An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)

Authors: Lusine Vaganian, Sonja Bussmann, Maren Boecker, Michael Kusch, Hildegard Labouvie, Alexander L. Gerlach, Jan C. Cwik

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 10/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The World Health Organization Disability Assessent Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) assesses disability in individuals irrespective of their health condition. Previous studies validated the usefulness of the WHODAS 2.0 using classical test theory. This study is the first investigating the psychometric properties of the 12-items WHODAS 2.0 in patients with cancer using item analysis according to the Rasch model.

Methods

In total, 350 cancer patients participated in the study. Rasch analysis of the 12-items version of the WHODAS 2.0 was conducted and included testing unidimensionality, local independence, and testing for differential item functioning (DIF) with regard to age, gender, type of cancer, presence of metastases, psycho-oncological support, and duration of disease.

Results

After accounting for local dependence, which was mainly found across items of the same WHODAS domain, satisfactory overall fit to the Rasch model was established (χ² = 36.14, p = 0.07) with good reliability (PSI = 0.82) and unidimensionality of the scale. DIF was found for gender (testlet ‘Life activities’) and age (testlet ‘Getting around/Self-care’), but the size of DIF was not substantial.

Conclusion

Overall, the analysis results according to the Rasch model support the use of the WHODAS 2.0 12-item version as a measure of disability in cancer patients.

World Health Organization [WHO], & The World Bank. (2011). World report on Disability. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization.

Üstün, T. B., Kostanjesek, N., Chatterji, S., & Rehm, J. (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder: DSM-5TM. (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.CrossRef

Gold, L. H. (2014). DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(2), 173–181

Federici, S., Bracalenti, M., Meloni, F., & Luciano, J. V. (2017). World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(23), 2347–2380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177CrossRefPubMed

Luciano, J. V., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Fernández, A., Serrano-Blanco, A., Roca, M., & Haro, J. M. (2010). Psychometric properties of the twelve item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) in Spanish primary care patients with a first major depressive episode. Journal of Affective Disorders, 121(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.05.008CrossRefPubMed

Magistrale, G., Pisani, V., Argento, O., Incerti, C., Bozzali, M., Cadavid, D., et al. (2015). Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 21, 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514543732CrossRefPubMed

Kirchberger, I., Braitmayer, K., Coenen, M., Oberhauser, C., & Meisinger, C. (2014). 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. Population Health Metrics, 12(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-014-0027-8CrossRef

10.

Norouzi, H., Roohi, S., Shahhosseini, M., & Nouri Ghasemabady, R. (2020). Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 among Iranian Cancer Patients. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 11(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.30476/mejc.2019.81280.0CrossRef

11.

Pösl, M., Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2007). Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Quality of Life Research, 16(9), 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4CrossRefPubMed

12.

Zhao, H. P., Liu, Y., Li, H. L., Ma, L., Zhang, Y. J., & Wang, J. (2013). Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 897–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0212-9CrossRefPubMed

13.

Fischer, G. H. (1987). Applying the principles of specific objectivity and of generalizability to the measurement of change. Psychometrika, 52(4), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294820CrossRef

14.

Gustafsson, J.-E. (1980). Testing and obtaining fit of data to the Rasch model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33(2), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1980.tb00609.xCrossRef

15.

Luciano, J. V., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Aguado, J., Fernandez, A., Serrano-Blanco, A., Roca, M., et al. (2010). The 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): A nonparametric item response analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Snell, D. L., Siegert, R. J., & Silverberg, N. D. (2020). Rasch analysis of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in a mild traumatic brain injury sample. Brain Injury, 34(5), 610–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2020.1729417CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kutlay, S., Küçükdeveci, A. A., Elhan, A. H., Oztuna, D., Koç, N., & Tennant, A. (2011). Validation of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International, 31(3), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-009-1306-8CrossRefPubMed

18.

Küçükdeveci, A. A., Kutlay, Ş, Yıldızlar, D., Öztuna, D., Elhan, A. H., & Tennant, A. (2013). The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(3), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.690817CrossRefPubMed

19.

Leiner, D. J. (2014). SoSci Survey (Version 2.4.00-i) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.soscisurvey.de.

20.

Cwik, J. C., Vaganian, L., Bussmann, S., Labouvie, H., Houwaart, S., Gerlach, A. L., et al. (2021). Assessment of coping with cancer-related burdens: psychometric properties of the Cognitive-Emotional Coping with Cancer scale and the German Mini-mental Adjustment to Cancer scale. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and Practice, 3(1), e046. https://doi.org/10.1097/or9.0000000000000046CrossRef

21.

IBM Corporation (Released 2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

22.

Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM 2030 [Computer software]. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory.

23.

da Rocha, N. S., Chachamovich, E., de Almeida Fleck, M. P., & Tennant, A. (2013). An introduction to Rasch analysis for psychiatric practice and research. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.09.014CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108CrossRefPubMed

25.

Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., Krabbe, P. F., Revicki, D., Viney, R., Devlin, N., & Feeny, D. (2015). A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33(8), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272CrossRef

27.

Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(Pt 1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466506x96931CrossRefPubMed

28.

Smith, E. V., Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231PubMed

29.

Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520CrossRefPubMed

30.

Marais, I. (2013). Local dependence. In K. B. Christensen, S. Kreiner, & M. Mesbah (Eds.), Rasch models in health. (pp. 111–130). London, England: Wiley.CrossRef

31.

Pomeroy, I. M., Tennant, A., Mills, R. J., Young, C. A., & Group, T. O. S. (2020). The WHOQOL-BREF: a modern psychometric evaluation of its internal construct validity in people with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 29(7), 1961–1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02463-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Andrich, D. (2016). Components of variance of scales with a bifactor subscale structure from two calculations of α. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 35(4), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12132CrossRef

33.

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying Bifactor Statistical Indices in the Evaluation of Psychological Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249CrossRefPubMed

34.

Christensen, K. B., Thorborg, K., Hölmich, P., & Clausen, M. B. (2019). Rasch validation of the Danish version of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) in patients with rotator cuff-related disorders. Quality of Life Research, 28(3), 795–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2052-8CrossRefPubMed

35.

Siegert, R. J., Tennant, A., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2010). Rasch analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in a neurological rehabilitation sample. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280902971398CrossRefPubMed

36.

Andrich, D. (2013). An expanded derivation of the threshold structure of the Polytomous Rasch Model that dispels any “Threshold Disorder Controversy.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 78–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412450877CrossRef

37.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

38.

Herrmann-Lingen, C., Buss, U., & Snaith, P. R. (2011). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Deutsche Version (HADS-D). Huber.

39.

Jenniches, I., Lemmen, C., Cwik, J. C., Kusch, M., Labouvie, H., Scholten, N., et al. (2020). Evaluation of a complex integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care program (isPO): A mixed-methods study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 10(3), e034141–e034141. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034141CrossRef

Title: An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)
Authors: Lusine Vaganian
Sonja Bussmann
Maren Boecker
Michael Kusch
Hildegard Labouvie
Alexander L. Gerlach
Jan C. Cwik
Publication date: 01-10-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02872-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2021

Quality of life and occupational performance of children with cancer in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of rehabilitation

Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Could the EQ-5D-3L predict all-cause mortality in older Chinese? Evidence from a 5-year longitudinal study in eastern China

Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus

Support for the higher-order factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0 self-report version in a Dutch outpatient psychiatric setting