Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in blind people

Laís Sampaio Silveira; Shamyr Sulyvan Castro; Camila Ferreira Leite; Nuno Miguel Lopes Oliveira; Angélica Emboaba Salomão; Karina Pereira

doi:10.1590/1809-2950/17013126012019

Authors

Laís Sampaio Silveira Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM) – Uberaba (MG), Brazil
Shamyr Sulyvan Castro Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) – Fortaleza (CE), Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2661-7899
Camila Ferreira Leite Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) – Fortaleza (CE), Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6375-8845
Nuno Miguel Lopes Oliveira Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM) – Uberaba (MG), Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7295-7491
Angélica Emboaba Salomão Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM) – Uberaba (MG), Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4348-9745
Karina Pereira Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM) – Uberaba (MG), Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7486-1004

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/17013126012019

Abstract

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a tool developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to measure functioning and disability, supporting the ICF model. The Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 was translated and made available for use by WHO in 2015. Thus, this study aims to validate the Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in blind people. Participants were 56 blind people (mean age: 48.4 ± 13.6) years. Two assessment tools were used, the 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-bref). The psychometric properties tested were internal consistency, test-retest and criterion validity. There was good test-retest reliability (ICC≥0.63). Cronbach’s alpha values showed good internal consistency in most areas, except in the subdomain of school or work activities (α = 0.55). The validity criterion was adequate, with moderate correlations between WHODAS 2.0 domains and WHOQOL-bref areas. The results indicated the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing the functionality of blind people.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Moreira L. Cegueira sob a visão médica. In: Mosquera C,

organizador. Deficiência visual: do currículo aos processos

de reabilitação. Curitiba: Editora do Chain; 2014 [cited 2019

Jan 29]. p. 67-92. Available from: https://bit.ly/2RJKaNS

Masini EFS. A educação do portador de deficiência visual:

as perspectivas do vidente e do não vidente. Em Aberto.

;13(60):61-74. doi:10.24109/2176-6673.emaberto.13i60

Nunes S, Lomônaco JFB. O aluno cego: preconceitos e

potencialidades. Psicol Esc Educ. 2010;14(1):55-64. doi:10.1590/

S1413-85572010000100006

World Health Organization. International Classification of

Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). 2001 [cited 2016 Apr

. Available from: https://bit.ly/2SclVnA

World Health Organization. WHO Disability Assessment

Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). 2011 [cited 2016 Apr 11]. Available

from: https://bit.ly/2G5DX7Q

Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, Lauriola M, Belardinelli

MO. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II: contribution to the Italian Validation. Disabil Rehabil.

;31(7):553-64. doi:10.1080/09638280802240498

Castro SS, Leite CF. Avaliação de saúde e deficiência: manual

do WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)

[Internet]. Uberaba: Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro;

[cited 2019 Jan 24]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2HuHhf8

Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”:

a practical method for grading the cognitive state of

patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-98.

doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

Brucki SMD, Nitrini R, Caramelli P, Bertolucci PHF, Okamoto

IH. Sugestões para o uso do mini-exame do estado mental no

Brasil. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2003;61(3B):777-81. doi:10.1590/

S0004-282X2003000500014

Lourenço RA, Veras RP. Mini-mental state examination:

psychometric characteristics in elderly outpatients.

Rev Saúde Pública. 2006;40(4):712-9. doi:10.1590/

S0034-89102006000500023

Pawlowski J, Fonseca RP, Salles JF, Parente MAMP, Bandeira

DR. Evidências de validade do Instrumento de Avaliação

Neuropsicológica Breve Neupsilin. Arq Bras Psicol. 2008;60(2):101-16.

Vitiello APP, Ciríaco JGM, Takahashi DY, Nitrini R,

Caramelli P. Avaliação cognitiva breve de pacientes

atendidos em ambulatório de neurologia geral. Arq

Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2007;65(2A):229-303. doi:10.1590/

S0004-282X2007000200021

Castro SS, Leite CF. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation

of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment

Schedule – WHODAS 2.0. Fisioter Pesqui. 2017;24(4):385-91.

doi:10.1590/1809-2950/17118724042017

Fleck MPA, Louzada S, Xavier M, Vieira G, Chachamovich

E, Santos L, et al. Aplicação da versão em português do

instrumento abreviado de avaliação da qualidade de vida

“WHOQOL-bref.”. Rev Saúde Pública. 2000;34(2):178-83.

doi:10.1590/S0034-89102000000200012

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ.

;314(7080):572. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

Andrade AL, Wachelke JFR. Estatística para quem não gosta

de números. Estud Psicol. 2009;26(1):109-10. doi:10.1590/

S0103-166X2009000100012

Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, Kostanjsek N, Schneider M. The

international classification of functioning, disability and health: a

new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil.

;25(11-12):565-71. doi:10.1080/0963828031000137063

Nabais MLM, Martins CLA, Monteiro MA, Galheira WG. Estudo

profissiográfico: o encaminhamento do deficiente visual ao

mercado de trabalho. Benjamin Constant. 2000;6(15):8-23.

Brasil. Lei nº 8.213, de 24 de julho de 1991. Dispõe sobre os planos

de benefícios da previdência social e dá outras providências.

Diário Oficial da União. 1991 Jul 25 [cited 2019 Jan 24]. Available

from: https://bit.ly/1sPNdmh

Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M, Steele R, Kolahi S, Berkson L, et

al. The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization

Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis.

Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(3):382-90. doi:10.1002/art.23314

Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, McArdle R, Wilson RH, Doyle

PJ. The WHO-DAS II: psychometric properties in the

measurement of functional health status in adults with

acquired hearing loss. Trends Amplif. 2005;9(3):111-26.

doi:10.1177/108471380500900303

Kutlay ŞK, Ayşe A, Elhan AH, Öztuna D, Koç N, Tennant A. Validation

of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule

II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int.

;31(3):339-46. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-1306-8

Scorza P, Stevenson A, Canino G, Mushashi C, Kanyanganzi F,

Munyanah M, et al. Validation of the “World Health Organization

Disability Assessment Schedule for Children, WHODAS-Child”

in Rwanda. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57725. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0057725

Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino Ó, Rojo JE, Cuesta MJ,

Martínez-Arán A, et al. Utility of the World Health Organization

disability assessment schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophr

Res. 2012;138(2-3):240-7. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2012.03.031

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. 2010;49(2):326-

doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kep369

Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, Nieto M, Chatterji S,

Vilagut G, et al. Validation of the “World Health Organization

Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with

chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;19(8):51.

doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-51

Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay Ş, Yıldızlar D, Öztuna D, Elhan AH, Tennant

A. The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization

Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disabil

Rehabil. 2013;35(3):214-20. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.690817

Wolf AC, Tate RL, Lannin NA, Middleton J, Lane-Brown A,

Cameron ID. The World Health Organization Disability

Assessment Scale, WHODAS II: reliability and validity in

the measurement of activity and participation in a spinal

cord injury population. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(9):747-55.

doi:10.2340/16501977-1016

Zhao HP, Liu Y, Li HL, Ma L, Zhang YJ, Wang J. Activity limitation

and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving

chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of

the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res.

;22(4):897-906. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0212-9

World Health Organization. Global data on visual impairments

[Internet]. 2012 [cited 2019 Jan 24]. Available from: https://

bit.ly/1F3hrEM

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines

for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report

measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol

DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus

on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement

properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin

Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006

Arieta CEL, Oliveira DF, Lupinacci APC, Novaes P, Paccola M,

Jose NK, et al. Cataract remains an important cause of blindness

in Campinas, Brazil. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16(1):58-63.

doi:10.1080/09286580802575032

Carlozzi NE, Kratz AL, Downing NR, Goodnight S, Miner

JA, Migliore N, et al. Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS

0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD). Qual Life Res.

;24(8):1963-71. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0930-x

Downing NR, Kim JI, Williams JK, Long JD, Mills JA, Paulsen

JS. WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease: measures

of functioning in neuropsychiatric disease. Eur J Hum Genet.

;22(8):958-63. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.275

Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, Lauriola M, Olivetti BM.

World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule

II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil.

;31(7):553-64. doi:10.1080/09638280802240498

Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino Ó, Rojo E, Vieta E, Cuesta MJ,

et al. Disability in bipolar disorder: the 36-item World Health

Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. J Affect

Disord. 2015;(174):353-60. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.028

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):448-56.

doi:10.1177/1352458514543732

Schiavolin S, Ferroli P, Acerbi F, Brock S, Broggi M, Cusin A, et

al. Disability in Italian neurosurgical patients: validity of the

-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment

Schedule. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37(3):267-70. doi:10.1097/

MRR.0000000000000064

Tazaki M, Yamaguchi T, Yatsunami M, Nakane Y. Measuring

functional health among the elderly: development of the

Japanese version of the World Health Organization Disability

Assessment Schedule II. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37(1):48-53.

doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000032

Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in blind people

Authors

DOI:

Abstract

Downloads

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License

How to Cite

Keywords

Language

Information