Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0
T Bedirhan Üstün, Somnath Chatterji, Nenad Kostanjsek, Jürgen Rehm, Cille Kennedy, Joanne Epping-Jordan, Shekhar Saxena, Michael von Korff, Charles Pull & in collaboration with WHO/NIH Joint Project
Volume 88, Number 11, November 2010, 815-823
Table 2. Concurrent validity coefficients for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, 36-item and 12-item versions, versus other recognized disability measurement instruments
|SF 36 (n = 608–658)c||SF 12a (n = 93–94)c||WHO QOL (n = 257–288)c||LHS (n = 662–839)c||FIMb (n = 68–82)c|
|1 Cognition: understanding and communicating||−0.19||−0.10||−0.50||−0.62||−0.53|
|2 Mobility: getting around||−0.68||−0.69||−0.50||−0.53||−0.78|
|4 Interpersonal: getting along||−0.21||−0.21||−0.54||−0.50||−0.34|
|6 Participation in society||−0.55||−0.43||−0.66||−0.64||−0.62|
FIM, Functional Independent Measure; LHS, London Handicap Scale; SF, Short Form Health Survey; WHO QOL, World Health Organization Quality of Life scale.
a For correlations in domains 1 and 4, the SF mental scores were used. For all other domains the SF physical scores were used.
b For domain 1, the FIM cognition score was used as the basis of the correlation. For domain 2, the FIM mobility score was used. For all other domains, the overall FIM score was used.
c The n in parentheses represents the minimum and maximum number of subjects on which the correlations are based.[an error occurred while processing this directive]