ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022
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.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 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
- Differential item functioning in neonatal behavioral neurological assessment in high-risk full-term infants in NICU based on a machine learning approach.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Differential item functioning in the children autism rating scale first edition in children with autism spectrum disorder based on a machine learning approach.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Differential item functioning in the autism behavior checklist in children with autism spectrum disorder based on a machine learning approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Prevalence and levels of disability post road traffic orthopaedic injuries in Rwanda.African journal of disability · 2024Article
- Quality of life of survivors following road traffic orthopaedic injuries in Rwanda.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- [Research progress on the questionnaire related to persistent postural-perceptual dizziness].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023Review
- Psychometric evaluation of the WHODAS 2.0 and prevalence of disability in a Swedish general population.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Validation of the Alcohol-Related Sexual Consequences Scale in Swedish University Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic instrument for the assessment of functioning in six domains, resulting in a total health-related disability score. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Swedish-language version of the self-rated 36-item version in psychiatric outpatients with various common psychiatric diagnoses using Rasch analysis. A secondary aim was to explore the correlation between two methods of calculating overall scores to guide clinical practice: the WHODAS simple (summative) model and the WHODAS complex (weighted) model.
methodsCross-sectional data from 780 Swedish patients with various mental disorders were evaluated by Rasch analysis according to the partial credit model. Bivariate Pearson correlations between the two methods of calculating overall scores were explored.
resultsOf the 36 items, 97% (35 items) were within the recommended range of infit mean square; only item D4.5 (Sexual activities) indicated misfit (infit mean square 1.54 logits). Rating scale analysis showed a short distance between severity levels and disordered thresholds. The two methods of calculating overall scores were highly correlated (0.89-0.99).
conclusionsThe self-administered WHODAS 2.0 fulfilled several aspects of validity according to Rasch analysis and has the potential to be a useful tool for the assessment of functioning in psychiatric outpatients. The internal structure of the instrument was satisfactorily valid and reliable at the level of the total score but demonstrated problems at the domain level. We suggest rephrasing the item Sexual activities and revising the rating scale categories. The WHODAS simple model is easier to use in clinical practice and our results indicate that it can differentiate function among patients with moderate psychiatric disability, whereas Rasch scaled scores are psychometrically more precise even at low disability levels. Further investigations of different scoring models are warranted.
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.