ArticleRheumatology international2017
Reliability and validity of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin-Beck disease.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child: a systematic review of global psychometric studies in specific populations since 2010.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Psychometric evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in women with potentially life-threatening maternal conditions during the immediate postpartum period: A cross-sectional study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Mapping the 12-item World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) onto the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-4D utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Article
- Psychometric properties of the 12-item WHODAS applied through phone survey: an experience in PERSIAN Traffic Cohort.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Polish Version of the 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Patients with Huntington's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Predictors of Use of Preventative Health Services for People with Disabilities in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The 12 items Amharic version WHODAS-2 showed cultural adaptation and used to measure disability among road traffic trauma victims in Ethiopia.BMC psychology · 2021Article
- Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Comparison of the responsiveness of the WOMAC and the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin-Beck disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Validation of Neuro-QoL and PROMIS Mental Health Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Persons with Huntington Disease.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to check the reliability and validity of the 12-item Chinese version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for the assessment of disability in patients with Kashin-Beck disease (KBD). We recruited 219 patients with KBD from the high-risk KBD area in the Shaanxi province, using stratified multistage random sampling. We assessed each patient using the Chinese version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC). Statistical evaluations of the instruments consisted of Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Cronbach's alpha and ICC for the six domains ranged from 0.704 to 0.906 and 0.690 to 0.852, respectively. A six-factor structure fits the data well (CFI = 0.967, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.08). Regarding convergent validity, the four domains of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 (getting around, self-care, life activity, and participation) showed moderate-to-strong correlation for all three domains of the WOMAC (0.428 < |r| < 0.804). Regarding divergent validity, the two domains of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 (understanding and communication, and getting along with people) showed weak correlation for the three domains of WOMAC (0.182 < |r| < 0.295). The Chinese version of 12-item WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument when administered to KBD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.