Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0
Gavin Andrews, Alice Kemp, Matthew Sunderland, Michael Von Korff, Tevik Bedirhan Ustun, Gavin Andrews, Alice Kemp, Matthew Sunderland, Michael Von Korff, Tevik Bedirhan Ustun
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) measures disability due to health conditions including diseases, illnesses, injuries, mental or emotional problems, and problems with alcohol or drugs.
Method: The 12 Item WHODAS 2.0 was used in the second Australian Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. We report the overall factor structure and the distribution of scores and normative data (means and SDs) for people with any physical disorder, any mental disorder and for people with neither.
Findings: A single second order factor justifies the use of the scale as a measure of global disability. People with mental disorders had high scores (mean 6.3, SD 7.1), people with physical disorders had lower scores (mean 4.3, SD 6.1). People with no disorder covered by the survey had low scores (mean 1.4, SD 3.6).
Interpretation: The provision of normative data from a population sample of adults will facilitate use of the WHODAS 2.0 12 item scale in clinical and epidemiological research.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
References
- Rehm J, Ustun TB, Saxena S, Nelson CB, Chatterji S, et al. On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. Int J Methods in Psychiatric Research. 1999;8:110–122.
- Ormel J, Petukhova M, Chatterji S, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, et al. Disability and treatment of specific mental and physical disorders across the world: Results from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Br J Psychiatry. 2008;192:368–375.
- Von Korff M, Andrews G, Delves M. Progress in assessing activity limitations and global disability among adults. 2009. Proceedings of the 2009 American Psychopathological Association meetings Mar 5–7; New York City, U.S (in press)
- Revicki DA, Irwin D, Reblando J, Simon GE. The accuracy of self-reported disability days. Med Care. 1994;32:401–404.
- Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D, Liberman J, Von Korff M. Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain. 1999;79:291–301.
- Ferrie JE, Kivimaki M, Head J, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, et al. A comparison of self-reported sickness absence with absences recorded in employers' registers: evidence from the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62:74–79.
- Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–310.
- Slade T, Johnston A, Oakley Browne M, Andrews G, Whiteford H. 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: description of methods and summary of key findings. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009;43:594–605.
- Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition.
- Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Ann Rev Public Health. 2002;23:151–169.
Source: PubMed