| MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES | |
| Limitations | >=5 European languages (English) |
| Observations | |
| 1. RELIABILITY | |
| A. Internal Consistency | Tested |
| Cronbach's (Describe) |
Cronbach’s alpha levels were generally very high (>0.85) for the different domains. Total internal consistency was 0.96 for 36 items. |
| B. Reliability intraobserver or test-retest | Tested |
| Continuous scores: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomus: Cohen kappa (Describe) |
Test–retest reliability had an ICC of 0.69–0.89 at item level; 0.93– 0.96 at domain level; and 0.98 at overall level. |
| C. Reliability interobserver or Measurement error | Tested |
| Standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) or Limits of agreement (LoA) (Describe) |
WHODAS 2.0 showed relatively small SEM (2.94) and MDC (8.15), which support the reliability of WHODAS 2.0 total score. |
| 2. VALIDITY | |
| A. Content validity: face validity | Tested |
| Expert opinion (relevance and comprehensiveness) (Describe) |
64% of the experts agreed that the WHODAS 2.0 content measures disability as defined by the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health |
| B. Construct Validity: Structural validity |
Tested |
| Hypotheses-testing | Tested |
| Cross-cultural validity | Tested |
| Brief Description |
In all cultures and populations tested, factor analysis of the WHODAS 2.0 revealed a robust factor structure on two levels: a first level consisting of a general disability factor, and a second level composed of the six WHODAS representing different life areas |
| C. Criterion validity | Tested |
| Comparison with a 'gold standard' Continuous scores: correlations, ROC curves Dichotomus: Sensitivity & Specificity (Describe) |
Criterion validity was adequate, with moderate correlations between the WHODAS 2.0 and the WHOQOL-HIV-BREF domains |