Is it time to rethink disability assessment in low back pain? Reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 for chronic low back pain.

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION

Physiotherapy Research International Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1002/pri.2025

Tuyra Francisca Castro E Silva, Paula Maciel de Sousa Silva Medeiros, Camila Ferreira Leite, Shamyr Sulyvan Castro, Ana Carla Lima Nunes, Fabianna Resende Jesus-Moraleida

{"title":"Is it time to rethink disability assessment in low back pain? Reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 for chronic low back pain.","authors":"Tuyra Francisca Castro E Silva, Paula Maciel de Sousa Silva Medeiros, Camila Ferreira Leite, Shamyr Sulyvan Castro, Ana Carla Lima Nunes, Fabianna Resende Jesus-Moraleida","doi":"10.1002/pri.2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and purpose: The World Health Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was developed to assess health and disability based on the biopsychosocial model. The WHODAS 2.0 has not been validated for Brazilians with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). We aimed to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 in patients with chronic LBP.Methods: Methodological study. The Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 was applied to 100 volunteers with chronic nonspecific LBP. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were assessed using the Spearman correlation test, Cronbach's alpha (α) coefficient, and Spearman's correlation test between WHODAS 2.0, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), respectively.Results: WHODAS 2.0 showed satisfactory test-retest reliability with a moderate correlation for total WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.75, p < 0.05). Internal consistency was adequate for all domains and total score (α = 0.82-0.96). Regarding construct validity, WHODAS 2.0, ODI (r = 0.70, p < 0.05), and WHODAS 2.0 and RMDQ (r = 0.71, p < 0.05) had significant correlations. Total WHODAS 2.0 and FABQ-Phys subscale scores correlated moderately (r = 0.66, p < 0.05).Discussion: The Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 was proved to be a valid and reliable tool for patients with chronic LBP. The item referring to sexual intercourse had 27% and 30% of the missing values during the test and retest stage, respectively and had a high percentage of missing data for work-related questions (41% missing data) in the life activities domain; therefore, the data must be interpreted with caution.Implications for physiotherapy practice: WHODAS 2.0 can be used as a disability assessment strategy from a biopsychosocial perspective in this population.","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The World Health Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was developed to assess health and disability based on the biopsychosocial model. The WHODAS 2.0 has not been validated for Brazilians with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). We aimed to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 in patients with chronic LBP.

Methods: Methodological study. The Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 was applied to 100 volunteers with chronic nonspecific LBP. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were assessed using the Spearman correlation test, Cronbach's alpha (α) coefficient, and Spearman's correlation test between WHODAS 2.0, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), respectively.

Results: WHODAS 2.0 showed satisfactory test-retest reliability with a moderate correlation for total WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.75, p < 0.05). Internal consistency was adequate for all domains and total score (α = 0.82-0.96). Regarding construct validity, WHODAS 2.0, ODI (r = 0.70, p < 0.05), and WHODAS 2.0 and RMDQ (r = 0.71, p < 0.05) had significant correlations. Total WHODAS 2.0 and FABQ-Phys subscale scores correlated moderately (r = 0.66, p < 0.05).

Discussion: The Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 was proved to be a valid and reliable tool for patients with chronic LBP. The item referring to sexual intercourse had 27% and 30% of the missing values during the test and retest stage, respectively and had a high percentage of missing data for work-related questions (41% missing data) in the life activities domain; therefore, the data must be interpreted with caution.

Implications for physiotherapy practice: WHODAS 2.0 can be used as a disability assessment strategy from a biopsychosocial perspective in this population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

是时候重新考虑腰痛的残疾评估了吗？巴西WHODAS 2.0治疗慢性腰痛的可靠性、内部一致性和结构有效性。

背景和目的：世界健康残疾评估计划2.0（WHODAS 2.0）是基于生物心理社会模型制定的，旨在评估健康和残疾。WHODAS 2.0尚未针对患有慢性非特异性腰痛（LBP）的巴西人进行验证。我们旨在评估巴西版WHODAS2.0在慢性LBP患者中的可靠性、内部一致性和结构有效性。方法：方法学研究。巴西版WHODAS 2.0应用于100名患有慢性非特异性LBP的志愿者。采用Spearman相关检验、Cronbachα系数和Spearman相关性检验，分别对WHODAS2.0、Oswestry残疾指数（ODI）、Roland-Morris残疾问卷（RMDQ）和恐惧回避信念问卷（FABQ）进行信度、内部一致性和构念有效性评估。结果：WHODAS 2.0显示出令人满意的重新测试可靠性，与WHODAS总2.0具有中等相关性（r=0.75，p讨论：巴西WHODAS 2.0被证明是治疗慢性LBP患者的有效和可靠的工具。在测试和重新测试阶段，涉及性交的项目分别有27%和30%的缺失值，在生活活动领域，与工作相关的问题有很高比例的缺失数据（41%的缺失数据）；因此，必须谨慎解读这些数据。物理治疗实践的启示：WHODAS 2.0可以作为一种从生物心理社会角度对该人群进行残疾评估的策略。

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

Physiotherapy Research International REHABILITATION-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.