Keywords
Disability Evaluation
Adults
Self-Testing
Psychometrics
Validation Study
Reproducibility of Results
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction: Various theoretical and conceptual frameworks have historically shaped the measurement of disability, many focusing on activity limitations due to impairments in bodily functions or structures. However, these perspectives do not comprehensively address other components, such as environmental factors and participation in life situations under various health conditions, which would provide a more holistic measurement of global disability. Objective: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the available instruments for assessing disability using the ICF model. Additionally, the study sought to examine the validity and reliability of assessment procedures applied to these instruments. Methodology: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in Ovid, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Rehabilitation Reference Center, and Google Scholar from 2012 to 2022. Independent reviewers performed screening, selection, and data extraction. Risk of bias assessment according to COSMIN and GRADE level of evidence was applied. Results: A total of 1,998 articles were identified, 188 were reviewed in full text, and 3 were included in the review. The identified scales for assessing global disability were WHODAS 2.0 and IMPACT-S. The quality of measurement properties for the first scale was indeterminate for structural validity and internal consistency and sufficient for hypothesis testing; the level of evidence was moderate. The IMPACT-S was indeterminate for structural validity and sufficient for internal consistency, reliability, criterion validity, and hypothesis testing. Conclusions: The most widely used instrument for measuring global disability is WHODAS 2.0, which has proven preventable across different contexts and populations.
References
Timpe K. Denying a unified concept of disability. J Med Philos. 2022; 47(5). doi: https://doi. org/10.1093/jmp/jhac021
Jeff M. Radical cognitive limitation. In disability and disadvantage. In: Brownlee K, Cureton A, editors. Disability and disadvantage. Londres: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 240–259.
McDermott S, Turk MA. The myth and reality of disability prevalence: Measuring disability for research and service. Disabil Health J. 2011; 4(1): 1-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2010.06.002
Braddock D, Parish S. Disability at the dawn of the 21st Century and The State of the States. Quinta Edición. Braddock D, editor. Washington: American Association on Mental Retardation; 2002. 1–86 p.
Organización Mundial de la Salud, Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Clasificación internacional del funcionamiento de la discapacidad y de la salud. Primera Edición. Organización Mundial de la Salud, Organización Panamericana de Salud, editors. Washington D. C: OPS; 2001. 1–258 p.
1O’Young B, Gosney J, Ahn C. The concept and epidemiology of disability. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2019; 30(4): 697-707. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2019.07.012
Bourke JA, Nichols-Dunsmuir A, Begg A, Dong H, Schluter PJ. Measuring disability: An agreement study between two disability measures. Disabil Health J. 2021; 14(2): 100995. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100995
Manini T. Development of physical disability in older adults. Curr Aging Sci. 2011; 4(3): 184-191. doi: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874609811104030184
Sen A. Health: perception versus observation. BMJ. 2002; 324(7342): 860-861. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7342.860
Stuck AE, Walthert JM, Nikolaus T, Büla CJ, Hohmann C, Beck JC. Risk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: A systematic literature review. Soc Sic Me. 1999; 48(4): 445-469. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00370-0
Tas Ü, Verhagen AP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Odding E, Koes BW. Prognostic factors of disability in older people: A systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2007; 57(537): 319-323.
Magistrale G, Pisani V, Argento O, Incerti CC, Bozzali M, Cadavid D, et al. Validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2015; 21(4): 448–456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514543732
Meesters JJL, Verhoef J, Liem ISL, Putter H, Vlieland TPMV. Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010; 49(2): 326-333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kep369
Wolf T, Schulz H, Losem C, Reichert D, Hurtz HJ, Sandner R, et al. Prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NADIR study). Eur J Haematol. 2019; 102(2): 174–181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13189
Zacarias LC, Câmara KJ da C, Alves BM, Morano MTAP, Viana CMS, Mont’Alverne DGB, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for individuals with COPD. Disabil Rehabil. 2022; 44(19): 5663-5668. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1948117
O’Young B, Gosney J, Ahn C. The concept and epidemiology of disability. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2019; 30(4): 697–707. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2019.07.012
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2021; 74(9): 790-799. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016. Erratum in: Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2022; 75(2): 192.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). COSMIN manual for systematic reviews of PROMs COSMIN. 2018. Available from: https://cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMINsyst-review-for-PROMs-manual_version-1_feb-2018.pdf.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Chiang YC, Liou TH, Lee HC, Escorpizo R. Using whodas 2.0 to assess functional impairment in people with depression: Should employment receive more attention? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(9): 4552. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094552
Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Sozański B, Kotarski H, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A. Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0. BMC Public Health. 2020; 20(1): 1230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09305-0
Hoehne A, Giguère CE, Herba CM, Labelle R. Assessing functioning across common mental disorders in psychiatric emergency patients: Results from the WHODAS-2. Canad J Psychiatry. 2021; 66(12): 1085-1093. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743720981200
Snell DL, Iverson GL, Panenka WJ, Silverberg ND. Preliminary validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017; 34(23): 3256–3261. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2017.5234
Schenk Zu, Schweinsberg E, Lange J, Schucany M, Wendel C. Teilhabe nach Schlaganfall – Validierung der deutschen Ubersetzung des IMPACT-S [Participation Following Stroke - Validation of the German Version of IMPACT-S]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2015; 54(3): 160-165. German. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1545358
Organización Mundial de la Salud. Medición de la Salud y la Discapacidad - Manual para el Cuestionario de Evaluación de la Discapacidad de la OMS. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). 2015. Disponible en: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/170500/9874573309_spa.
pdf?sequence=1
Post MWM, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, Verdonschot MM, Wijlhuizen GJ, Perenboom RJM. Development and validation of impact-s, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med. 2008; 40(8): 620-627. doi: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0223
Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Bernert S, Bruffaerts R, Brugha TS, Bryson H, et al. Disability and quality of life impact of mental disorders in Europe: Results from the European study of the epidemiology of mental disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatr Scan Suppl. 2004; 109(420): 38-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0047.2004.00329.x
Buist-Bouwman MA, Ormel J, De Graaf R, Vilagut G, Alonzo G, Van Sonderen E, et al. Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008; 17(4): 185-197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.261
Post MWM, van der Zee CH, Hennink J, Schafrat CG, Visser-Meily JMA, van Berlekom SB. Validity of the utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitationparticipation. Rehabil. 2012; 34(6): 478–485. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.608148
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano traductores. Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones versión 5.1.0. versión 5.1.0. Higgins J, Green S, editors. 2012. 1–639 p
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Camila Rodríguez-Guevara, Andry Yasmid Mera-Mamián, Diana Isabel Muñoz-Rodríguez, Gino Montenegro-Martínez, Pablo Esteban Roa-Urrutia, Erika Alejandra Giraldo-Gallo