The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

The Korean Society of Physical Therapy (대한물리치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Korean Cultural Adaptation of WHODAS 2.0 (36-Item Version): Reliability and Linking to ICF

  • Song, Ju Min (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Silla University) ;
  • Lee, Hae Jung (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Silla University)
  • Received : 2018.12.04
  • Accepted : 2018.12.31
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was to conduct a Korean cultural adaptation of the WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0: 36-item version. Methods: An internationally standardized process of translation and cultural adaptation of an instrument was used to develop a Korean version of WHODAS 2.0: 36-item version. Linking each item into the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was also conducted in order to ensure the concepts in the translated instrument were compatible with ICF. All translated versions of the instrument, linking results and feedback from participants were used for the final adaptation of the Korean version of the instrument. The Korean version of the instrument was assessed twice on different occasions to examine Inter- and intra-rater reliability, and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. Results: Twelve participants were involved in the translation and linking process. Ninety-five volunteers were invited to participate to examine the reliability of the instrument. Fifty participants completed the self-rated version of the instrument and 45 finished the interviewer version. The Korean WHODAS 2.0: 36-item version was found to have excellent reliability: self-rated version and interviewer version reliability coefficients were ICC=0.92 and ICC=0.94, respectively. Thirty-four items of the translated instrument were to be linked to ICF categories. Some adaptation was made; details and a familiar example were added to help respondents answer the questions. Conclusion: The study results show that the adaptation of the 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 to Korean was successful and the instrument is ready for use in testing its psychometric properties.

Keywords

References

  1. Prodinger B, Tennant A, Stucki G. Standardized reporting of functioning information on ICF-based common metrics. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;51(1):110-7.
  2. Worth A, Hammersley V, Knibb R et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for asthma: a systematic review. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2014;24:14020. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.20
  3. Geyh S, Cieza A, Kollerits B et al. Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(5):833-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9174-8
  4. Wang P, Zhang J, Liao W et al. Content comparison of questionnaires and scales used in low back pain based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(14):1167-77. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.637602
  5. Song J, Lee H. Mapping items of functioning questionnaires into the international classification of functioning, disability and health: stroke. J Kor Phys Ther. 2016;28(5):341-7. https://doi.org/10.18857/jkpt.2016.28.5.341
  6. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J et al. Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-51
  7. Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N et al. Development the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815-23. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.067231
  8. Lee H, Song J. Mapping items of functioning questionnaires into the international classification of functioning, disability and health: low back pain. J Kor Phys Ther. 2016;28(5):321-7. https://doi.org/10.18857/jkpt.2016.28.5.321
  9. 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):2812-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009
  10. Silva C, Coleta I, SilvaI AG et al. Adaptation and validation of whodas 2.0 in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;47(4):1-6.
  11. Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F et al. World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2347-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177
  12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  13. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: Korean version. Seoul, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2016.
  14. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(4):212-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970510040263
  15. WHO. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Malta, World Health Orgnization, 2010.
  16. Lee H, Song J. The Korean language version of stroke impact scale 3.0: cross-cultural adaptation and translation. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2015;10(3):47-55. https://doi.org/10.13066/kspm.2015.10.3.47

Cited by

  1. Development of Korean the Version of the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ-K) vol.32, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.18857/jkpt.2020.32.1.44
  2. 65세 이상 노인의 참여활동수준과 기능장애에 관한 연구 vol.10, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.22156/cs4smb.2020.10.09.222
  3. The 12 items Amharic version WHODAS-2 showed cultural adaptation and used to measure disability among road traffic trauma victims in Ethiopia vol.9, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00492-4
  4. 맞춤형 주거환경수정을 이용한 노인의 건강상태 차이비교 분석: 커뮤니티케어 사업을 중심으로 vol.11, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.22156/cs4smb.2021.11.08.176