ArticlePloS one2024
Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of the Japanese version of the death and dying distress scale.BioPsychoSocial medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisability is an important multifaceted construct. A brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire that promises a broader and more comparable measure of disability than disease-specific instruments does not currently exist. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate such a questionnaire: the Universal Disability Index (UDI).
methodsAn online survey was used to collect general population data. Data were randomly divided into training and validation subsets. The dimensionality and structure of eight UDI questionnaire items were evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA, training subset) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, validation subset). To assess concurrent validity, the UDI summed score from the full dataset was compared to the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability scores. Internal consistency and discriminant validity were also assessed. Bootstrapping was used to evaluate model stability and generalisability.
results403 participants enrolled; 364 completed at least one UDI item. Three single-factor versions of the UDI were assessed (8-item, 7-item, and 6-item). All versions performed well during EFA and CFA (182 cases assigned to each), but none met the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) criterion (≤ 0.08). All versions of the UDI had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.90), were strongly correlated (Pearson's r > 0.7) with both GARS and GCPS disability scores, indicating concurrent validity, and could accurately discriminate between upper and lower quartiles of these comparators. Confidence intervals of estimates were narrow, suggesting model stability and generalisability.
conclusionsA brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire was found to be valid and to possess good psychometric properties. The UDI has a single factor structure and either a 6-item, 7-item or 8-item version can be used to measure disability. For brevity and parsimony, the 6-item UDI is recommended, but further testing of all versions is 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.