ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative performance of disability measures.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A comparative analysis of self-identification and functional measures of disability.Disability and health journal · 2026Article
- Disability Diagnoses Identified by the American Community Survey 6-Question Sequence.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Mitra on Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Disability data: a case study in research limitation transparency.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Article
- Undercounts of people with serious mental illness using the Washington Group Short Set questions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers and federal agencies are currently discussing the best way to measure disability in US federal surveys. One idea being discussed is expanding/supplementing the question sets commonly used to capture disability status in order to better capture a broader segment of the disabled population. We used data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey to examine the performance of questions commonly used to measure disability in the US-the ACS-6 and Washington Group Short Set questions-in capturing intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental health disabilities, and physical health disabilities. We found that neither set of disability questions was sufficient to fully capture these disability statuses. We contend that current disability questions used in US population surveys must be expanded/supplemented in order to increase the inclusiveness of disability measurement, and thereby, improve efforts to reduce disparities experienced by the disabled population.
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.