Functioning Evaluation for Patients with Chronic Diseases Using World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0

  • XU Yue-ying ,
  • ZHENG Jie-jiao ,
  • XIA Wen ,
  • LI Yong ,
  • XU Guo-hui ,
  • DUAN Lin-ru ,
  • QU Bing ,
  • QIU Zhuo-ying
Expand
  • 1.Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huadong Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China
    2.China Academy of ICF, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China
    3.WHO-FIC Collaborating Center in China, Beijing 100068, China
    4.Research Institute of Rehabilitation Information, China Rehabilitation Science Institute, Beijing 100068, China
    5.Research Institute of Rehabilitation Information, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China

Received date: 2018-10-17

  Revised date: 2019-04-09

  Online published: 2019-09-25

Supported by

Supported by Shanghai Health System Important and Weak Discipline (Rehabilitation Medicine) (No. 2015ZB0402) and Project of the General Administration of Sport (No. 2017B065)

Abstract

Objective To test the reliability and validity of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for assessment of functioning for people with chronic diseases. Methods From December, 2017 to June, 2018, 346 patients with chronic diseases who received rehabilitation interventions in Huadong Hospital-Jing'an District Rehabilitation Medical Association were selected and evaluated with WHODAS 2.0, and re-evaluated after two weeks. According to the actual use of clinical rehabilitation, in order to improve the accuracy of functional measurement, the items had been added in the second domain Getting Around including Handling, Moving and Manipulating Objects, while added in the third domain Self Care including Caring for Body Parts and Toileting, and added in the fourth domain Getting Along with People including Establishing Formal Social Interpersonal Relationship, with a total of 40 items. The content reliability and structural validity of the scale with four items added were verified by internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability and confirmatory factor analysis. Results The Cronbach's α coefficient of the internal consistency reliability was 0.981, the Pearson coefficient of the test-retest reliability was 0.977 (P < 0.001). The final model of the scale with confirmatory factor analysis had good structural validity: the standardized factor loads between potential variables and corresponding measurement indicators were 0.710-0.960, and the standard errors were 0.023-0.066; Chi square degrees of freedom < 5, root-mean-square error of approximation < 0.1, standardized root mean square residual < 0.08, the comparatice fit index, normal of fit index, relative fit index, incremental fit index and Tucker-Lewis index all > 0.9; the reliability coefficients of the observed variables were > 0.5, the combined reliability of each potential variable > 0.6, and all the average variance extraction of each potential variable > 0.5, all P < 0.001, absolute value of the standardized residual < 3, Modification Index < 4. There was significant difference in the total score and scores of domains among the patients with different diseases (F > 10.21, P < 0.001). Conclusion WHODAS 2.0 can be used as an assessment tool for the overall health and functioning for people with chronic diseases. Each item, including four new items added, had good content reliability and structural validity.

Cite this article

XU Yue-ying , ZHENG Jie-jiao , XIA Wen , LI Yong , XU Guo-hui , DUAN Lin-ru , QU Bing , QIU Zhuo-ying . Functioning Evaluation for Patients with Chronic Diseases Using World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0[J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2019 , 25(9) : 993 -999 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.09.001

References

1 GrillE, StuckiG. 基于ICF核心分类集类目开发临床等级评定量表[J]. 王朴,陈迪,田峻,等,译. 中国康复理论与实践, 2011, 17(2): 110-114.
2 姚洁,尚少梅. BI、FIM及ICF的应用[J]. 中国康复, 2012, 27(2): 134-136.
3 世界卫生组织. 国际功能、残疾和健康分类[M]. 日内瓦:世界卫生组织, 2001.
4 SchepersV P M, KetelaarM, van de PortI G L, et al. 运用《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》比较脑卒中康复功能性结局测量的内容[J]. 王朴,李沁燚,邱卓英,等,译. 中国康复理论与实践, 2008, 14(12): 1116-1119.
5 WyniaK, MiddelB, van DijkJ P, et al. 应用ICF扩大慢性神经性疾病中健康问题范围的研究[J]. 王朴,张君梅,荀芳,等,译. 中国康复理论与实践, 2008, 14(12):1128-1132.
6 朱平,纪树荣,邱卓英,等. ICF临床检查表与ASIA和ADL评定脊髓损伤的相关性研究[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2004, 10(12): 778-779.
7 熊德凤,张冠庭,潘经光,等. 运用世界卫生组织《残疾评定量表》(WHODAS 2.0)评定香港残疾人士和慢性病患者的活动和参与障碍[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2014, 20(6): 508-512.
8 世界卫生组织分类、评定、调查与术语项目小组. 世界卫生组织残疾评定项目及其与《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》的关系[J]. 张爱民,蔡飞鸣,鲁玉红,等,译. 中国康复理论与实践, 2003, 9(1): 15-17.
9 吴明隆. 结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用[M]. 重庆:重庆大学出版社, 2009: 39-59.
10 李娟,罗勇,赵庆华,等. 住院患者参与患者安全意愿倾向量表编制及结构探索[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2015, 31(13): 2207-2210.
11 郭庆科,王炜丽,陈雪霞,等. 验证性因素分析中模型拟合的判断[J]. 心理学探新, 2007, 27(4): 83-87.
12 吴伟旋,许军,吴志华,等. 自测健康评定量表应用于交通警察的验证性因子分析[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2016, 33(3): 445-447.
13 郭太玮,朱勤,施鸿飞. 基于结构方程模型的大学生亚健康量表效度测评[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2013, 30(1): 23-26.
14 吴振云. 心理评定量表使用中的质量控制[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2009, 23(12): 837-839.
15 徐秀娟,倪进东,王效军. 基于二阶验证性因子分析的SF-36量表结构效度的分析[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2013, 30(6): 846-848.
16 何燕燕,邱卓英. 世界卫生组织《残疾评定量表》在残疾运动员功能评定中的应用[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2006, 12(3): 268-269.
17 王松涛. 探索性因子分析与验证性因子分析比较研究[J]. 兰州学刊, 2006(5): 155-156.
18 张超,徐燕,陈平雁. 探索性因子分析与验证性因子分析在量表研究中的比较与应用[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2007, 27(11): 1699-1700.
19 杨茗,蒋皎皎,郝秋奎,等. 老年失能评估量表的二阶验证性因子分析[J]. 中国康复医学杂志, 2014, 29(7): 624-627.
Outlines

/