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":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Factorial Validity of the 32-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Persons With Stroke.
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.
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.