ArticlePloS one2026
Development and validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 for persons with disabilities having community rehabilitation services in Hong Kong.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic instrument aligned with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Existing Chinese versions are not fully applicable to the Hong Kong sociolinguistic context. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and preliminarily evaluate the psychometric properties of a Hong Kong Traditional Chinese version of WHODAS 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0 TC-HK).
methodsWHODAS 2.0 was translated using forward-backward procedures. A convenience sample of 177 adults with disabilities receiving community rehabilitation services completed WHODAS 2.0 TC-HK, the SF-36 TC-HK, and WHOQOL-BREF TC-HK. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and concurrent validity were examined. Construct validity was explored using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on the original six-domain model.
resultsInternal consistency was good across domains (Cronbach's α = 0.86-0.89). Test-retest reliability was moderate to good (ICC = 0.59-0.87). WHODAS 2.0 TC‑HK showed moderate negative correlations with SF‑36 TC‑HK and WHOQOL‑BREF TC‑HK domains, supporting convergent and concurrent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 32‑item version demonstrated suboptimal model fit, indicating only partial support for the original factor structure.
conclusionsWHODAS 2.0 TC‑HK demonstrates good reliability and acceptable convergent and concurrent validity among adults receiving community rehabilitation services in Hong Kong. However, structural validity of the instrument remains preliminary and requires further investigation in larger and more diverse samples, particularly for the complete 36‑item version.
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.