To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) has been validated across various settings and health conditions. However, few studies have evaluated the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) among individuals with mental health conditions.
Aims
This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in populations with depression, anxiety and psychosis from seven LMICs.
Method
Secondary analyses were carried out using existing longitudinal data-sets in adult populations with depression, anxiety and psychosis across Brazil, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru and South Africa. Reliability, validity and responsiveness to change of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 were examined.
Results
The 12-item WHODAS-2.0 was acceptably one-dimensional for all data-sets at baseline, with model-fit indices ranging from moderate to excellent. Internal consistency of the measure was found to be high across settings (Cronbach’s α = 0.83−0.97). Weak to moderate correlations with measures of symptom severity were found across all countries, except India. Moderate to strong correlations were observed with measures of functioning/quality of life across all countries, except Nigeria and Ghana.
Internal responsiveness to change was large in five out of seven studies, except both Ethiopian studies. However, external responsiveness to change exhibited variability, with weak to moderate correlations between change in WHODAS 2.0 and symptom scores across all countries.
Conclusion
The 12-item WHODAS 2.0 generally showed acceptable psychometric properties across different settings and mental health conditions. However, high variability was observed in convergent validity and external responsiveness to change, which warrants further investigation.
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic measure of functional impairment and disability but to date no studies have reported its applicability in a population of Syrian refugees.
Aims
The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Arabic version of the WHODAS 2.0 among a population of Syrian refugees in a Jordanian refugee camp setting. The tool was used as part of a screening procedure for a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of a low-intensity psychological intervention.
Method
A representative sample of Syrian refugees (n = 650) were screened to assess levels of functional impairment and psychological distress. The screening results were used to explore the internal consistency and dimensionality of the WHODAS 2.0. We assessed level of convergence with the validated Kessler 10-item Psychological Distress Scale (K10), which assesses psychological distress. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to explore the construct validity and factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0.
Results
The mean baseline WHODAS 2.0 score was 20.5 (s.d. = 7.6). The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha 0.74), with all 12-items appearing to be related to the same construct. The WHODAS 2.0 was positively correlated with the K10 (r = 0.57, P < 0.001). The results of the EFA identified a three-factor solution accounting for 51% of variation, corresponding with factors related to self-activities, external activities and self-care. CFA results indicated good fit of the three-factor solution.
Conclusions
The results indicated that the WHODAS 2.0 has a three-factor solution and is an acceptable screening tool for use among Syrian refugees.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.