SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child: a systematic review of global psychometric studies in specific populations since 2010.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Empirical evaluation of an ICF core set for managing musculoskeletal conditions in primary care physical therapy services in Spain: a multicenter study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This global systematic review evaluated the psychometric properties, namely the reliability and validity, of all WHODAS 2.0 versions and forms, including WHODAS-Child, which has been used in specific populations since 2010, in assessing alignment with the WHO manual. Materials and methods: Following PRISMA-COSMIN guideline, electronic databases and a curated personal library were searched up to April 30, 2025. Included were 143 empirical studies on WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child in samples with specific populations, spanning 43 countries. Results: Across five data extraction forms, the mean and median values of the aggregated data regarding the measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child are reported. The 36-item version demonstrated excellent internal consistency (mean α = 0.92), while the 12-item one showed good reliability (mean α = 0.88), and the test-retest reliability was strong for both (ICC = 0.89-0.91). Factor analyses supported the six-domain structure for the 36-item version and WHODAS-Child, though more variability was noted for the 12-item version. Cultural and age-related challenges emerged, indicating the need for contextual adaptations. Discussion and conclusions: The results showed good behavior of WHODAS 2.0, albeit slightly lower than the psychometric profiles described in the Manual. WHODAS-Child, though promising, requires further validation and refinement, particularly for cross-cultural applications.
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.