WHODAS 2.0在青少年精神障碍患者中的心理测量特性及信息一致度。

IF 2.9 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Erica J McDonald, Chloe Bedard, Sharon I Kirkpatrick, Christopher M Perlman, Mark A Ferro
{"title":"WHODAS 2.0在青少年精神障碍患者中的心理测量特性及信息一致度。","authors":"Erica J McDonald,&nbsp;Chloe Bedard,&nbsp;Sharon I Kirkpatrick,&nbsp;Christopher M Perlman,&nbsp;Mark A Ferro","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined psychometric properties, parent-youth agreement, and factors associated with agreement on the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data come from a clinical sample of 56 youth, aged 14-17 years, receiving mental health care at a pediatric hospital. Correlations between the WHODAS 2.0, KIDSCREEN-27, and demographic variables were used to assess validity. Internal consistency was measured using ordinal alpha. The Bland-Altman method and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess parent-youth agreement. Logistic regression examined factors associated with disagreement > 0.5 standard deviation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For both parent and youth, correlations were low to moderate in exploring convergent (τ= -0.42 to 0.01) and divergent validity (τ/r = -0.12 to 0.32). Internal consistency was adequate (α > 0.7). Parent WHODAS 2.0 scores were significantly lower than youth scores and Bland-Altman plots revealed poor parent-youth agreement (ICC = -0.04 to 0.33). Lower household income was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 35-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.28, 95% CI= 0.08-0.99), and older youth age was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.40, 95% CI= 0.19-0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric properties of both WHODAS 2.0 versions were similar, so the abbreviated version may be sufficient to measure functional impairment in a clinical context. Additional research is needed to better understand the factors that influence discrepancies between informants and the implications for care. However, reports from both youth and parents appear valuable in understanding functional impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":47053,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879036/pdf/ccap32_p0038.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric properties and informant agreement of the WHODAS 2.0 in youth with mental disorder.\",\"authors\":\"Erica J McDonald,&nbsp;Chloe Bedard,&nbsp;Sharon I Kirkpatrick,&nbsp;Christopher M Perlman,&nbsp;Mark A Ferro\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined psychometric properties, parent-youth agreement, and factors associated with agreement on the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data come from a clinical sample of 56 youth, aged 14-17 years, receiving mental health care at a pediatric hospital. Correlations between the WHODAS 2.0, KIDSCREEN-27, and demographic variables were used to assess validity. Internal consistency was measured using ordinal alpha. The Bland-Altman method and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess parent-youth agreement. Logistic regression examined factors associated with disagreement > 0.5 standard deviation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For both parent and youth, correlations were low to moderate in exploring convergent (τ= -0.42 to 0.01) and divergent validity (τ/r = -0.12 to 0.32). Internal consistency was adequate (α > 0.7). Parent WHODAS 2.0 scores were significantly lower than youth scores and Bland-Altman plots revealed poor parent-youth agreement (ICC = -0.04 to 0.33). Lower household income was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 35-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.28, 95% CI= 0.08-0.99), and older youth age was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.40, 95% CI= 0.19-0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric properties of both WHODAS 2.0 versions were similar, so the abbreviated version may be sufficient to measure functional impairment in a clinical context. Additional research is needed to better understand the factors that influence discrepancies between informants and the implications for care. However, reports from both youth and parents appear valuable in understanding functional impairment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879036/pdf/ccap32_p0038.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究考察了世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS) 2.0的12项和36项版本的心理测量特性、父母-青少年协议以及与协议相关的因素。方法:数据来自56名青少年的临床样本,年龄14-17岁,在儿科医院接受精神卫生保健。使用WHODAS 2.0、KIDSCREEN-27和人口统计变量之间的相关性来评估效度。内部一致性采用有序alpha测量。采用Bland-Altman方法和类内相关系数(ICC)评估亲子协议。逻辑回归检验了分歧> 0.5标准差的相关因素。结果:对于父母和年轻人,在探索收敛效度(τ= -0.42至0.01)和发散效度(τ/r = -0.12至0.32)方面的相关性均为低至中等。内部一致性良好(α > 0.7)。父母WHODAS 2.0得分显著低于青少年得分,Bland-Altman图显示父母与青少年的一致性较差(ICC = -0.04 ~ 0.33)。较低的家庭收入与较低的对35项WHODAS 2.0的不同意率相关(OR= 0.28, 95% CI= 0.08-0.99),较年长的青年年龄与较低的对12项WHODAS 2.0的不同意率相关(OR= 0.40, 95% CI= 0.19-0.84)。结论:两个WHODAS 2.0版本的心理测量特性相似,因此简化版本可能足以在临床环境中测量功能障碍。需要进一步的研究来更好地了解影响举报者之间差异的因素及其对护理的影响。然而,来自年轻人和父母的报告似乎对理解功能障碍很有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychometric properties and informant agreement of the WHODAS 2.0 in youth with mental disorder.

Objective: This study examined psychometric properties, parent-youth agreement, and factors associated with agreement on the 12-item and 36-item versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0.

Methods: Data come from a clinical sample of 56 youth, aged 14-17 years, receiving mental health care at a pediatric hospital. Correlations between the WHODAS 2.0, KIDSCREEN-27, and demographic variables were used to assess validity. Internal consistency was measured using ordinal alpha. The Bland-Altman method and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess parent-youth agreement. Logistic regression examined factors associated with disagreement > 0.5 standard deviation.

Results: For both parent and youth, correlations were low to moderate in exploring convergent (τ= -0.42 to 0.01) and divergent validity (τ/r = -0.12 to 0.32). Internal consistency was adequate (α > 0.7). Parent WHODAS 2.0 scores were significantly lower than youth scores and Bland-Altman plots revealed poor parent-youth agreement (ICC = -0.04 to 0.33). Lower household income was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 35-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.28, 95% CI= 0.08-0.99), and older youth age was associated with lower odds of disagreement on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 (OR= 0.40, 95% CI= 0.19-0.84).

Conclusion: The psychometric properties of both WHODAS 2.0 versions were similar, so the abbreviated version may be sufficient to measure functional impairment in a clinical context. Additional research is needed to better understand the factors that influence discrepancies between informants and the implications for care. However, reports from both youth and parents appear valuable in understanding functional impairment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
35
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信