Reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 among adults with heart failure

被引:0
|
作者
Gondim, Georgia de Melo Castro [1 ]
Bede, Julia Maria Sales [2 ]
Martins, Cristiany Azevedo [1 ]
da Silva, Francisco Vandecir [2 ]
da Silveira, Brenno Lucas Rodrigues [2 ]
Ribeiro, Vitoria Fonteles [2 ]
da Saude, Scheidt Martins [2 ]
Neto, Almino Cavalcante Rocha [3 ]
Mesquita, Rafael [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Mont'Alverne, Daniela Gardano Bucharles [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Ceara, Master Program Physiotherapy & Functioning, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
[2] Univ Fed Ceara, Dept Physiotherapy, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
[3] Univ Fed Ceara, Walter Cantidio Univ Hosp, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Ceara, Grad Program Cardiovasc Sci, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
来源
HEART & LUNG | 2025年 / 70卷
关键词
Heart failure; Validation study; Test reproducibility; PRESERVED EJECTION FRACTION; ACTIVITY STATUS INDEX; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.11.003
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Heart failure (HF) imposes significant disability. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 is a generic instrument that measures disability. Although it has been used in HF, no previous study has investigated its measurement properties in this group. Objective: To assess the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent, and discriminant validity of WHODAS 2.0 in individuals with HF. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study that included individuals with HF treated at the outpatient cardiology center. Data included sociodemographic and clinical (e.g., New York Heart Association - NYHA) characteristics, estimated functional capacity (Duke Activity Status Index - DASI), quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire - MLHFQ), and disability (the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version). We assessed associations, using Pearson's correlation coefficient or the Kruskal-Wallis test, between the WHODAS 2.0 scores and the MLHFQ, DASI, and NYHA. The WHODAS 2.0 results were collected again seven days after the initial assessment for reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC). Results: Participants were 100 people with HF (M age = 57.8 +/- 14 years, 57 % men), of whom 84 % were literate. The WHODAS 2.0 was reliable (ICC = 0.789) and had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.7 in all domains). Convergent validity was observed through moderate correlations with DASI and MLHFQ and discriminant validity with statistically different results according to NYHA classes. Conclusion: WHODAS 2.0 is a reliable, consistent, and valid instrument for measuring disability in individuals with HF. Further research is needed to evaluate other properties, such as its responsiveness to interventions.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 35
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Age-related differences in psychometric properties of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0): a retrospective analysis
    Karsikas, Mika
    Saltychev, Mikhail
    Juhola, Juhani
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH, 2024, 47 (04) : 276 - 281
  • [32] The Brazilian version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is reliable and valid for chronic stroke survivors
    Ovando, Angelica Cristiane
    Dall'Agnol, Catiane
    Luiz, Jhoanne Merlyn
    Momo, Renata Andrade
    De Castro, Shamyr Sulyvan
    TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION, 2024, 31 (02) : 211 - 220
  • [33] Adapting World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Nepal
    Risal, Ajay
    Kunwar, Dipak
    Karki, Eliza
    Adhikari, Shambhu Prasad
    Bimali, Inosha
    Shrestha, Barsha
    Khadka, Subekshya
    Holen, Are
    BMC PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 9 (01)
  • [34] Adapting World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Nepal
    Ajay Risal
    Dipak Kunwar
    Eliza Karki
    Shambhu Prasad Adhikari
    Inosha Bimali
    Barsha Shrestha
    Subekshya Khadka
    Are Holen
    BMC Psychology, 9
  • [35] The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in a chronic pain population being considered for chronic opioid therapy
    Wawrzyniak, Kelly M.
    Finkelman, Matthew
    Schatman, Michael E.
    Kulich, Ronald J.
    Weed, Valerie F.
    Myrta, Eura
    DiBenedetto, David J.
    JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH, 2019, 12 : 1855 - 1862
  • [36] Validity of the self-rated 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 as a measure of functioning in Swedish psychiatric outpatients
    Ramklint, Mia
    Soderberg, Per
    Tungstrom, Stefan
    Nordenskjold, Axel
    Hermansson, Liselotte
    NORDIC JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2023, 77 (03) : 276 - 281
  • [37] Validation of the "World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule for Children, WHODAS-Child" in Rwanda
    Scorza, Pamela
    Stevenson, Anne
    Canino, Glorisa
    Mushashi, Christine
    Kanyanganzi, Fredrick
    Munyanah, Morris
    Betancourt, Theresa
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (03):
  • [38] International Literature Review on WHODAS II (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II)
    Federici, Stefano
    Meloni, Fabio
    Lo Presti, Alessandra
    LIFE SPAN AND DISABILITY, 2009, 12 (01) : 85 - 112
  • [39] Validity and Reliability of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36-Item Persian Version for Persons with Multiple Sclerosis
    Salehi, Reza
    Negahban, Hossein
    Khiavi, Farzad Faraji
    Saboor, Shiva
    Majdinasab, Nastaran
    Shakhi, Kamal
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2020, 41 (03): : 195 - 201
  • [40] Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in patients attending the pain clinic
    Aki Fujiwara
    Mitsuru Ida
    Katsuhiro Kimoto
    Keisuke Watanabe
    Masahiko Kawaguchi
    Journal of Anesthesia, 2021, 35 : 81 - 85