Measuring health and disability : manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule : WHODAS 2.0
01 Jan 2010-
About: The article was published on 2010-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 1162 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Schedule.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The findings suggest that the PCL-5 is a psychometrically sound instrument that can be used effectively with veterans and that by determining a valid cutoff score using the CAPS-5, the instrument can now be used to identify veterans with probable PTSD.
Abstract: This study examined the psychometric properties of the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5; Weathers, Litz, et al., 2013b) in 2 independent samples of veterans receiving care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (N = 468). A subsample of these participants (n = 140) was used to define a valid diagnostic cutoff score for the instrument using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers, Blake, et al., 2013) as the reference standard. The PCL-5 test scores demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .96), test-retest reliability (r = .84), and convergent and discriminant validity. Consistent with previous studies (Armour et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2014), confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the data were best explained by a 6-factor anhedonia model and a 7-factor hybrid model. Signal detection analyses using the CAPS-5 revealed that PCL-5 scores of 31 to 33 were optimally efficient for diagnosing PTSD (κ(.5) = .58). Overall, the findings suggest that the PCL-5 is a psychometrically sound instrument that can be used effectively with veterans. Further, by determining a valid cutoff score using the CAPS-5, the PCL-5 can now be used to identify veterans with probable PTSD. However, findings also suggest the need for research to evaluate cluster structure of DSM-5. (PsycINFO Database Record
1,462 citations
TL;DR: The World Health Organizatiosn Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS2.0) as mentioned in this paper was developed to measure functioning and disability in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of the World Health Organizatiosn Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for measuring functioning and disability in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHODAS 2.0 is a standard metric for ensuring scientific comparability across different populations. METHODS: A series of studies was carried out globally. Over 65000 respondents drawn from the general population and from specific patient populations were interviewed by trained interviewers who applied the WHODAS 2.0 (with 36 items in its full version and 12 items in a shortened version). FINDINGS: The WHODAS 2.0 was found to have high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha, α: 0.86), a stable factor structure; high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient:0.98); good concurrent validity in patient classification when compared with other recognized disability measurement instruments; conformity to Rasch scaling properties across populations, and good responsiveness (i.e. sensitivity to change). Effect sizes ranged from 0.44 to 1.38 for different health interventions targeting various health conditions. CONCLUSION: The WHODAS 2.0 meets the need for a robust instrument that can be easily administered to measure the impact of health conditions, monitor the effectiveness of interventions and estimate the burden of both mental and physical disorders across different populations.
1,086 citations
TL;DR: Standards for the use of clinical outcome measures to strengthen the methodological quality of perioperative medicine research were developed and four composite outcome measures were identified, which were designed to evaluate postoperative outcomes.
Abstract: There is a need for large trials that test the clinical effectiveness of interventions in the field of perioperative medicine. Clinical outcome measures used in such trials must be robust, clearly defined and patient-relevant. Our objective was to develop standards for the use of clinical outcome measures to strengthen the methodological quality of perioperative medicine research. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and opinion leaders worldwide were invited to nominate papers that they believed the group should consider. The full texts of relevant articles were reviewed by the taskforce members and then discussed to reach a consensus on the required standards. The report was then circulated to opinion leaders for comment and review. This report describes definitions for 22 individual adverse events with a system of severity grading for each. In addition, four composite outcome measures were identified, which were designed to evaluate postoperative outcomes. The group also agreed on standards for four outcome measures for the evaluation of healthcare resource use and quality of life. Guidance for use of these outcome measures is provided, with particular emphasis on appropriate duration of follow-up. This report provides clearly defined and patient-relevant outcome measures for large clinical trials in perioperative medicine. These outcome measures may also be of use in clinical audit. This report is intended to complement and not replace other related work to improve assessment of clinical outcomes following specific surgical procedures.
517 citations
TL;DR: This work proposes a unified theoretical framework for the neuroscientific study of general resilience mechanisms and posits that a positive (non-negative) appraisal style is the key mechanism that protects against the detrimental effects of stress and mediates the effects of other known resilience factors.
Abstract: The well-replicated observation that many people maintain mental health despite exposure to severe psychological or physical adversity has ignited interest in the mechanisms that protect against stress-related mental illness. Focusing on resilience rather than pathophysiology in many ways represents a paradigm shift in clinical-psychological and psychiatric research that has great potential for the development of new prevention and treatment strategies. More recently, research into resilience also arrived in the neurobiological community, posing nontrivial questions about ecological validity and translatability. Drawing on concepts and findings from transdiagnostic psychiatry, emotion research, and behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, we propose a unified theoretical framework for the neuroscientific study of general resilience mechanisms. The framework is applicable to both animal and human research and supports the design and interpretation of translational studies. The theory emphasizes the causal role of stimulus appraisal (evaluation) processes in the generation of emotional responses, including responses to potential stressors. On this basis, it posits that a positive (non-negative) appraisal style is the key mechanism that protects against the detrimental effects of stress and mediates the effects of other known resilience factors. Appraisal style is shaped by three classes of cognitive processes-positive situation classification, reappraisal, and interference inhibition-that can be investigated at the neural level. Prospects for the future development of resilience research are discussed.
392 citations
TL;DR: Dementia, not blindness, is overwhelmingly the most important independent contributor to disability for elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes.
380 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A 36-item short-form survey designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study is constructed.
Abstract: A 36-item short-form (SF-36) was constructed to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF-36 was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 includes one multi-item scale that assesses eight health concepts: 1) limitations in physical activities because of health problems; 2) limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems; 3) limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems; 4) bodily pain; 5) general mental health (psychological distress and well-being); 6) limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; 7) vitality (energy and fatigue); and 8) general health perceptions. The survey was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older, and for administration by a trained interviewer in person or by telephone. The history of the development of the SF-36, the origin of specific items, and the logic underlying their selection are summarized. The content and features of the SF-36 are compared with the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study short-form.
33,857 citations
"Measuring health and disability : m..." refers methods in this paper
...Concurrent application of Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and the 36-item version (SF-36) (7,26), and the London Handicap Scale (LHS) (6)....
[...]
...BAI Barthel’s Index of Activities of Daily Living CAR cross-cultural applicability research CIDI composite international diagnostic interview FIM functional independence measure GP general practitioner ICC intra-class correlation coefficient ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health ICF-CY International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Children and Youth version ICIDH International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps LHS London Handicap Scale PCM partial credit model SCAN Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry SF-12 Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey SF-36 Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey WHO World Health Organization WHODAS 2.0 WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHOQOL WHO Quality of Life WHOQOL-BREF WHO Quality of Life Brief Scale WHS World Health Survey WMHS World Mental Health Survey !...
[...]
TL;DR: Twenty cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of empirical validity previously published for the 36-item short-form scales and summary measures were replicated for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the12-item Mental Component Summary, including comparisons between patient groups known to differ or to change in terms of the presence and seriousness of physical and mental conditions.
Abstract: Regression methods were used to select and score 12 items from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to reproduce the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scales in the general US population (n=2,333). The resulting 12-item short-form (SF-12) achieved multiple R squares of 0.911 and 0.918 in predictions of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores, respectively. Scoring algorithms from the general population used to score 12-item versions of the two components (Physical Components Summary and Mental Component Summary) achieved R squares of 0.905 with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and 0.938 with SF-36 Mental Component Summary when cross-validated in the Medical Outcomes Study. Test-retest (2-week)correlations of 0.89 and 0.76 were observed for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, respectively, in the general US population (n=232). Twenty cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of empirical validity previously published for the 36-item short-form scales and summary measures were replicated for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, including comparisons between patient groups known to differ or to change in terms of the presence and seriousness of physical and mental conditions, acute symptoms, age and aging, self-reported 1-year changes in health, and recovery for depression. In 14 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates for the 12-item Physical Component Summary ranged from 0.43 to 0.93 (median=0.67) in comparison with the best 36-item short-form scale. Relative validity estimates for the 12-item Mental Component Summary in 6 tests involving mental criteria ranged from 0.60 to 107 (median=0.97) in relation to the best 36-item short-form scale. Average scores for the 2 summary measures, and those for most scales in the 8-scale profile based on the 12-item short-form, closely mirrored those for the 36-item short-form, although standard errors were nearly always larger for the 12-item short-form.
14,793 citations
"Measuring health and disability : m..." refers methods in this paper
...Concurrent application of Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and the 36-item version (SF-36) (7,26), and the London Handicap Scale (LHS) (6)....
[...]
...BAI Barthel’s Index of Activities of Daily Living CAR cross-cultural applicability research CIDI composite international diagnostic interview FIM functional independence measure GP general practitioner ICC intra-class correlation coefficient ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health ICF-CY International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Children and Youth version ICIDH International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps LHS London Handicap Scale PCM partial credit model SCAN Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry SF-12 Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey SF-36 Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey WHO World Health Organization WHODAS 2.0 WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHOQOL WHO Quality of Life WHOQOL-BREF WHO Quality of Life Brief Scale WHS World Health Survey WMHS World Mental Health Survey !...
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: TheSF-36 is a generic health status measure which has gained popularity as a measure of outcome in a wide variety of patient groups and social and the contribution of baseline health, sociodemographic and work-related factors to the SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide is tested.
Abstract: The SF-36 is a generic health status measure which has gained popularity as a measure of outcome in a wide variety of patient groups and social. The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and its shorter version, the SF-12, are the measures SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Health Services Research Unit, University of Oxford, Headington. Postal survey using a questionnaire booklet, containing the SF-36-II and questions. The SMFA, the health survey short form (SF-36) along with a region-specific questionnaire Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The SF Health Surveys capture practical, reliable and valid information about or need assistance with an FDA dossier, we will guide you every step of the way. The 36 Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) is a generic patient-reported outcome measure, SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston. The SF-36 Health Survey is a self-administered questionnaire of 36 questions to M, and Gendek, B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The patients' self-assessment of QL was measured with the SF-36TM form at 3, M & Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide 1993. We aimed to determine whether health outcomes (pain severity and quality of life Gandeck B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation Guide. Boston:. Ware JE (1993) Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Thomas KJ, Usherwood T et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new. Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) is one of the increasing subjects used Jr, Kristin KS., Kosinski M, SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. They commonly take up low paid manual jobs and work long hours (6), mostly live in conditions that SF-36 health survey : manual and interpretation guide. Additionally, the contribution of baseline health, sociodemographic and work-related factors to the SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. cal Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to reproduce the Physical Component SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. results from a national survey. Archives of to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in Ten Countries: Survey: manual and interpretation guide. The Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36v2) is a widely used patient-reported Dewey JE, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, the Health Institute. The Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and a cross-cultural validated Snow KK, Kosinski M. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. the SF-36 Health Survey subscales, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Social Provisions activities emerged as enhancing meaning in life for the residents. A systematic their experience regarding the questions in the interview guide. SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston:. ABSTRACT Regression methods were used to select and score 12 items from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). SF-36 physical function tended to be better with the HFC (p=0.08) in addition to SF-36 SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The. HRQL was measured by the Greek version of SF-36 Health Survey and further B., Kosinski, M. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. SF-36 ® (MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) SF-36 ® ? PDFSF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide John E. Ware, Jr., Ph.D. with Kristin K. Subjects (N = 79) completed the SF-36 at baseline and every three weeks throughout the treatment SF-36v2 health survey: manual and interpretation guide.
11,954 citations
Book•
01 Mar 1981
7,518 citations
"Measuring health and disability : m..." refers background in this paper
...0 structure has been shown to be unidimensional and to have high internal consistency (76)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1968
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a survey of test theory models and their application in the field of mental test analysis. But the focus of the survey is on test-score theories and models, and not the practical applications and limitations of each model studied.
Abstract: This is a reprint of the orginal book released in 1968. Our primary goal in this book is to sharpen the skill, sophistication, and in- tuition of the reader in the interpretation of mental test data, and in the construction and use of mental tests both as instruments of psychological theory and as tools in the practical problems of selection, evaluation, and guidance. We seek to do this by exposing the reader to some psychologically meaningful statistical theories of mental test scores. Although this book is organized in terms of test-score theories and models, the practical applications and limitations of each model studied receive substantial emphasis, and these discussions are presented in as nontechnical a manner as we have found possible. Since this book catalogues a host of test theory models and formulas, it may serve as a reference handbook. Also, for a limited group of specialists, this book aims to provide a more rigorous foundation for further theoretical research than has heretofore been available.One aim of this book is to present statements of the assumptions, together with derivations of the implications, of a selected group of statistical models that the authors believe to be useful as guides in the practices of test construction and utilization. With few exceptions we have given a complete proof for each major result presented in the book. In many cases these proofs are simpler, more complete, and more illuminating than those originally offered. When we have omitted proofs or parts of proofs, we have generally provided a reference containing the omitted argument. We have left some proofs as exercises for the reader, but only when the general method of proof has already been demonstrated. At times we have proved only special cases of more generally stated theorems, when the general proof affords no additional insight into the problem and yet is substantially more complex mathematically.
6,814 citations