Factorial Validity of the 32-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Persons With Stroke.

IF 4.2 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Hsin-Yu Chiang, Yi-Ching Wang, Shih-Chieh Lee, Gong Hong Lin, Sheau-Ling Huang, Wen-Chou Chi, Chih-Wen Twu, Ching-Lin Hsieh
{"title":"Factorial Validity of the 32-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Persons With Stroke.","authors":"Hsin-Yu Chiang, Yi-Ching Wang, Shih-Chieh Lee, Gong Hong Lin, Sheau-Ling Huang, Wen-Chou Chi, Chih-Wen Twu, Ching-Lin Hsieh","doi":"10.1097/NPT.0000000000000536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a well-established tool for assessing disability. However, diverse factor structures complicate its interpretation, necessitating further validation. This study examined the factorial validity of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0 in persons with stroke using 1-factor, 6-factor, and 2-level hierarchical structures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional design was used with data from 1343 persons with stroke in the Taiwan Databank of Persons with Disabilities. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the valid structure of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1-factor structure exhibited poor model fits, while the 6-factor and the overall 2-level hierarchical structure had acceptable model fits. However, the relationships between domains and overall score of the 2-level structure yielded poor fits. Excellent internal consistencies (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.90) were obtained for the 6 domain scores and the overall score.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our results revealed poor model fit for the 1-factor model, whereas the 6-factor structure and the overall 2-level hierarchical structure were both acceptable. However, the relationships between domains and the overall score within the 2-level structure were poor. The 6-factor model is preferable due to its better fit and alignment with WHODAS 2.0's design to assess multiple life perspectives. The 6-domain structure appears the most robust for persons with stroke. Thus, the 6 domain scores of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0 are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":49030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000536","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a well-established tool for assessing disability. However, diverse factor structures complicate its interpretation, necessitating further validation. This study examined the factorial validity of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0 in persons with stroke using 1-factor, 6-factor, and 2-level hierarchical structures.

Methods: A cross-sectional design was used with data from 1343 persons with stroke in the Taiwan Databank of Persons with Disabilities. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the valid structure of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0.

Results: The 1-factor structure exhibited poor model fits, while the 6-factor and the overall 2-level hierarchical structure had acceptable model fits. However, the relationships between domains and overall score of the 2-level structure yielded poor fits. Excellent internal consistencies (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.90) were obtained for the 6 domain scores and the overall score.

Discussion and conclusions: Our results revealed poor model fit for the 1-factor model, whereas the 6-factor structure and the overall 2-level hierarchical structure were both acceptable. However, the relationships between domains and the overall score within the 2-level structure were poor. The 6-factor model is preferable due to its better fit and alignment with WHODAS 2.0's design to assess multiple life perspectives. The 6-domain structure appears the most robust for persons with stroke. Thus, the 6 domain scores of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0 are recommended.

32项世界卫生组织残疾评估表2.0在中风患者中的析因效度
背景和目的:世界卫生组织残疾评估表2.0 (WHODAS 2.0)是一项完善的残疾评估工具。然而,不同的因素结构使其解释复杂化,需要进一步验证。本研究采用1因素、6因素和2水平的层次结构检验了32项WHODAS 2.0在脑卒中患者中的析因效度。方法:采用横断面设计,对台湾残障人士数据库1343例脑卒中患者资料进行分析。采用验证性因子分析(CFA)确定32项WHODAS 2.0的有效结构。结果:1因素结构模型拟合较差,6因素和整体2层层次结构模型拟合较好。然而,域与2级结构总分之间的关系产生了较差的拟合。6个领域得分与总分具有良好的内部一致性(Cronbach's α≥0.90)。讨论与结论:我们的研究结果表明,单因素模型的拟合性较差,而6因素结构和整体2层层次结构都是可以接受的。然而,在2级结构中,领域与总分之间的关系较差。6因素模型更可取,因为它更适合和符合WHODAS 2.0的设计,以评估多种生活前景。6域结构似乎对中风患者最为稳健。因此,推荐32项WHODAS 2.0的6个领域得分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy (JNPT) is an indexed resource for dissemination of research-based evidence related to neurologic physical therapy intervention. High standards of quality are maintained through a rigorous, double-blinded, peer-review process and adherence to standards recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. With an international editorial board made up of preeminent researchers and clinicians, JNPT publishes articles of global relevance for examination, evaluation, prognosis, intervention, and outcomes for individuals with movement deficits due to neurologic conditions. Through systematic reviews, research articles, case studies, and clinical perspectives, JNPT promotes the integration of evidence into theory, education, research, and practice of neurologic physical therapy, spanning the continuum from pathophysiology to societal participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信