ArticleSpinal cord2019
Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in adults with spinal cord injury in Taiwan: a psychometric study.
Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Article
- Evidence for validity of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in patients with mental disorders: a multi-centre cross-sectional study using Rasch analysis.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Factor Structure of an ICF-Based Measure of Activity and Participations for Adults in Taiwan's Disability Eligibility Determination System.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designPsychometric study including exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis.
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to examine the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in terms of its dimensionality and metric properties in a sample of people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingTwo hundred and thirty-nine hospitals in Taiwan
methodsSecondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the National Disability Determination System in Taiwan, including data of individuals with more than 1-year chronic spinal cord injury and over 18 years of age. We would ask the all 6 domains of WHODAS 2.0, except those participants who were not working in present, based on the WHODAS 2.0 manual.
resultsData from 521 persons were included. The internal consistency of WHODAS 2.0 was high for all six domains (Cronbach's α between 0.87-0.99). The exploratory factor analysis supported the original six domain structure of WHODAS 2.0 to a large extent. Rasch analysis provided domain scores usable for measurement at the individual level and an overall WHODAS 2.0 score that takes into account the multidimensionality of the instrument.
conclusionsWHODAS 2.0 provides a reliable and valid instrument to measure relevant aspects of "activity and participation" in the context of functioning in people with SCI in Taiwan and may guide their rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30643169What 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.