Observational studyEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Psychometric comparison and score conversion between World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 and activities of daily living scales in community-dwelling older adults.
Observational study in European geriatric medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) with activities of daily living (ADL) scales for disability assessment and to explore the score conversion between these two measures in a community-dwelling geriatric population.
methodsData were drawn from the observational cohort study, the Beijing Longitudinal Disability Survey in Community Elderly, including 2170 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years. The 12-item WHODAS 2.0, ADL scales, and other corresponding measurements (mobility, cognition, depression, pain, nutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia) were evaluated face-to-face by well-trained assessors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the accuracy of discriminating participants with ADL disability. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the associations between WHODAS 2.0, ADL scales, and other geriatric assessment tools. Equipercentile equating was performed to develop a conversion table between the WHODAS 2.0 and ADL scales.
resultsAmong 2170 community-dwelling older adults, the mean (SD) age was 74.1 (7.2) years, and 867 (40.0%) were male. Using the ADL scales, 1660 participants (76.5%) were defined as independent and 510 (23.5%) as dependent. Our results found an agreement between WHODAS 2.0 and ADL in categorizing older adults with disability. WHODAS 2.0 had a sensitivity of 95.1% and specificity of 77.3% in detecting disabled versus non-disabled older adults, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.963. WHODAS 2.0 also presents strong correlations with ADL scales and other geriatric assessment tools. In addition, a conversion table between WHODAS 2.0 and ADL scores was built with high precision.
conclusionWHODAS 2.0 demonstrates good discriminative ability for ADL disability and correlates strongly with various geriatric assessments, supporting that it is an applicable, sensitive, and comprehensive measure for disability assessment in community-dwelling older adults. The conversion between the WHODAS 2.0 and ADL scales allows for the comparison and synthesis of scores across studies and offers clinicians valuable references when interpreting results from different disability scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40952659What 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.