Validation of the 36-item version of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for assessing women's disability and functioning associated with maternal morbidity

Abstract

Objective To validate the translation and adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese of 36 items from the World Health Organizaton Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), regarding their content and structure (construct), in a female population after pregnancy.

Methods This is a validation of an instrument for the evaluation of disability and functioning and an assessment of its psychometric properties, performed in a tertiary maternity and a referral center specialized in high-risk pregnancies in Brazil. A sample of 638 women in different postpartum periods who had either a normal or a complicated pregnancy was included. The structure was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), while the content and relationships among the domains were assessed through Pearson's correlation coefficient. The sociodemographic characteristics were identified, and the mean scores with their standard deviations for the 36 questions of the WHODAS 2.0 were calculated. The internal consistency was evaluated byCronbach's α.

Results Cronbach's α was higher than 0.79 for both sets of questons of the questionnaire. The EFA and CFA for the main 32 questions exhibited a total variance of 54.7% (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin [KMO] measure of sampling adequacy =  0.934; p < 0.001) and 53.47% (KMO = 0.934; p < 0.001) respectively. There was a significant correlation among the 6 domains (r = 0.571–0.876), and a moderate correlation among all domains (r = 0.476–0.694).

Conclusion The version of the WHODAS 2.0 instrument adapted to Brazilian Portuguese showed good psychometric properties in this sample, and therefore could be applied to populations of women regarding their reproductive history.

Resumo

Objetivo Validar a versão adaptada para o português brasileiro do instrumento World Health Organizaton Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), em seu conteúdo e estrutura (construto), em uma população de mulheres após a gravidez.

Métodos Trata-se de validação de um instrumento para incapacidade e funcionalidade, incluindo suas propriedades psicométricas, realizada em uma maternidade de referência em gestação de alto risco no Brasil. Incluiu uma amostra de 638 mulheres em diferentes períodos pós-parto que tiveram uma gravidez normal ou com complicações. A estrutura foi avaliada por análise fatorial exploratória (AFE) e análise fatorial confirmatória (AFC), enquanto o conteúdo e as associações entre os domínios foram avaliados por meio do coeficiente de correlação de Pearson. Foram identificadas características sociodemográficas, e os escores médios do WHODAS 2.0 para as 36 questões foram calculados. A consistência interna foi avaliada pelo método α de Cronbach.

Resultados O α de Cronbach foi maior do que 0,79 para os dois conjuntos de perguntas do questionário. A AFE e a AFC para as 32 questões apresentaram uma variância total de 54,7% (medida de adequação da amostra de Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin [KMO] = 0,934; p < 0,001) e 53,47% (KMO = 0,934; p < 0,001), respectivamente. Houve uma correlação significativa entre os 6 domínios (r = 0,571–0,876), e moderada correlação entre todos os domínios (r = 0,476–0,694).

Conclusão O instrumento WHODAS 2.0, adaptado para o português do Brasil, mostrou boas propriedades psicométricas nessa amostra e, portanto, pode ser aplicado a populações de mulheres com relação à sua história reprodutiva.

Keywords

International Classification of Functioning - Disability and Health (ICF) - pregnancy complications - validation studies - maternal and child health

Palavras-chave

Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade - Incapacidade e Saúde (CIF) - complicações na gravidez - estudos de validação - saúde materno-infantil

Supplementary Data

The full Brazilian Portuguese version of the WHODAS 2.0 can be accessed at the following link (supplementary material)

• References

• 1 World Health Organization [Internet] Women's health. Geneva: WHO; 2016. [cited 2016 Sep 18]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/womens_health
• 2 World Health Organization [Internet] Women and health: today's evidence tomorrow's agenda. Geneva: WHO; 2009. [cited 2016 Sep 18]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44168/1/9789241563857_eng.pdf
• 3 Ferdous J, Ahmed A, Dasgupta SK. , et al. Occurrence and determinants of postpartum maternal morbidities and disabilities among women in Matlab, Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr 2012; 30 (02) 143-158
• 4 Koblinsky M, Chowdhury ME, Moran A, Ronsmans C. Maternal morbidity and disability and their consequences: neglected agenda in maternal health. J Health Popul Nutr 2012; 30 (02) 124-130
• 5 World Health Organization [Internet] International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001. [cited 2016 Sep 18]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
• 6 Brandt DE, Ho PS, Chan L, Rasch EK. Conceptualizing disability in US national surveys: application of the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Qual Life Res 2014; 23 (10) 2663-2671
• 7 World Health Organization [Internet] Summary: world report on disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011. [cited 2016 Sep 18]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/accessible_en.pdf
• 8 Peeters G, Dobson AJ, Deeg DJ, Brown WJ. A life-course perspective on physical functioning in women. Bull World Health Organ 2013; 91 (09) 661-670
• 9 World Health Organization World Health Survey 2002–2004. Geneva: WHO; 2004
• 10 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [Demographic census: general characteristcs of population, religion and individuals with deficiency]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2010. . Portuguese.
• 11 Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. , Eds. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) [Internet]. Geneve: WHO; 2010. [cited 2016 Sep 18]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43974/1/9789241547598_eng.pdf
• 12 Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N. , et al; WHO/NIH Joint Project. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ 2010; 88 (11) 815-823
• 13 Silveira C, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC. , et al. [Cross-cultural adaptation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) into Portuguese]. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2013; 59 (03) 234-240
• 14 Silva C, Coleta I, Silva AG. , et al. Adaptation and validation of WHODAS 2.0 in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Rev Saude Publica 2013; 47 (04) 752-758
• 15 Pasquali L. [Psychometry: theory of tests in psychology and education]. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2009. . [Validity of tests]; p. 58–191. Portuguese.
• 16 Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Parpinelli MA. , et al; Brazilian Network for Surveillance of Severe Maternal Morbidity. Brazilian network for the surveillance of maternal potentially life threatening morbidity and maternal near-miss and a multidimensional evaluation of their long term consequences. Reprod Health 2009; 6: 15
• 17 Pacagnella RC, Cecatti JG, Camargo RP. , et al. Rationale for a long-term evaluation of the consequences of potentially life-threatening maternal conditions and maternal “near-miss” incidents using a multidimensional approach. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32 (08) 730-738
• 18 Hair Jr JF, Anderson RE, Taham RL, Black WC. [Multivariate analysis of data]. 5th ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2005. . [Factorial analysis]; p. 89–127. Portuguese.
• 19 Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995; 7 (03) 286-299
• 20 Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M. , et al. The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59 (03) 382-390
• 21 Chiu TY, Yen CF, Chou CH. , et al. Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 36--item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 35 (11) 2812-2820
• 22 Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino O. , et al. Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2012; 138 (2-3): 240-247
• 23 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 (03) 111-126
• 24 Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (09) 1521-1531
• 25 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 (09) 747-755
• 26 Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J. , et al; MHADIE consortium. Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 51
• 27 Silveira C, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC. , et al. A cohort study of functioning and disability among women after severe maternal morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 134 (01) 87-92
• 28 Norton J, de Roquefeuil G, Benjamins A, Boulenger JP, Mann A. Psychiatric morbidity, disability and service use amongst primary care attenders in France. Eur Psychiatry 2004; 19 (03) 164-167
• 29 Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, Luciano JV. World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 1-34 ; [Epub ahead of print]