Support for the higher-order factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0 self-report version in a Dutch outpatient psychiatric setting.

Tytuł:: Support for the higher-order factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0 self-report version in a Dutch outpatient psychiatric setting.
Autorzy:: Williams GL; Dimence Foundation, Specialized Assessment and Treatment Division, Department of Digital Mental Healthcare, Dimence Group, Deventer, The Netherlands. .; Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. .
de Beurs E; Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Spinhoven P; Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.; Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Flens G; Alliance for Quality in Dutch Mental Health Care, Akwa GGZ, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Paap MCS; Nieuwenhuis Institute for Educational Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.; Clinic Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Źródło:: Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation [Qual Life Res] 2021 Oct; Vol. 30 (10), pp. 2939-2949. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jun 12.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2005- : Netherlands : Springer Netherlands
Original Publication: Oxford, UK : Rapid Communications of Oxford, Ltd, c1992-
MeSH Terms:: Disability Evaluation*
Outpatients*
Adult ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Psychometrics ; Quality of Life/psychology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Self Report ; World Health Organization
References:: Douglas, H., Georgiou, A., & Westbrook, J. (2017). Social participation as an indicator of successful aging: An overview of concepts and their associations with health. Australian Health Review, 41, 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH16038. (PMID: 10.1071/AH1603827712611)
Carver, L., Beamish, R., Phillips, S., & Villeneuve, M. (2018). A scoping review: Social participation as a cornerstone of successful aging in place among rural older adults. Geriatrics, 3, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics3040075. (PMID: 10.3390/geriatrics30400756371105)
Cuijpers, P. (2019). Targets and outcomes of psychotherapies for mental disorders: an overview. World Psychiatry, 18, 276–285. (PMID: 10.1002/wps.20661314961026732705)
World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF—The international classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization.
Üstün, T. B., Kosstanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Rehm, J. (Eds.). (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. World Health Organization.
Obbarius, A., van Maasakkers, L., Baer, L., Clark, D. M., Crocker, A. G., de Beurs, E., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., et al. (2017). Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety: Recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group. Quality of Life Research, 26, 3211–3225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1659-5. (PMID: 10.1007/s11136-017-1659-5287860175681977)
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. (PMID: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596)
Gold, L. H. (2014). DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 20 (WHODAS 20). The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 173–181. (PMID: 24986344)
Üstün, B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan, J., Saxena, S., von Korff, M., & Pull, C. (2010). Developing the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 815–823. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.067231. (PMID: 10.2471/BLT.09.067231210765622971503)
Federici, S., Bracalenti, M., Meloni, F., & Luciano, J. V. (2017). World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39, 2347–2380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177. (PMID: 10.1080/09638288.2016.122317727820966)
Cuijpers, P., Juan, L., Hofmann, S. G., & Andersson, G. (2010). Self-reported versus clinician-rated symptoms of depression as outcome measures in psychotherapy research on depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 768–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.001. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.00120619943)
Garin, O., Ayuso-Mateos, J., Almansa, J., Nieto, M., Chatterji, S., Vilagut, G., Alonso, J., et al. (2010). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-51. (PMID: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-51204828532893517)
American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Handboek voor de classificatie van psychische stoornissen (1st ed.). Boom uitgevers.
Akwa GGZ. 2020. Vroege opsporing van psychische klachten en aandoeningen in de volwassen bevolking, 9.10.13 Screeningsinstrumenten naar functionele beperkingen. https://www.ggzstandaarden.nl/generieke-modules/vroege-opsporing-van-psychische-klachten-en-aandoeningen-in-de-volwassen-bevolking/introductie.
Konecky, B., Meyer, E. C., Marx, B. P., Kimbrel, N. A., & Morissette, S. B. (2014). Using the WHODAS 2.0 to assess functional disability associated with DSM5 mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 818–819. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14050587. (PMID: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.1405058725082488)
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., Ader, D., Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Rose, M. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55. (PMID: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55174431162829758)
Wahl, I., Löwe, B., Bjorner, J. B., Fischer, F., Langs, G., Voderholzer, U., Aita, S. A., Bergemann, N., Brähler, E., & Rose, M. (2014). Standardization of depression measurement: A common metric was developed for 11 self-report depression measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.019. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.01924262771)
Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: Linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS Anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.11.006. (PMID: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.11.00624508596)
RCore Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. (PMID: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02)
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., et al. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 . (PMID: 10.21105/joss.01686)
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University.
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. 2019. semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-2.
Epskamp, S. 2019. semplot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM Packages’ Output.
Willse, J.T. 2018. CTT: Classical test theory functions.
Torchiano, M. (2020). Effsize: Efficient effect size computation. Viena: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624. (PMID: 10.5281/zenodo.1480624)
McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144. (PMID: 10.1037/met000014429265846)
Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of assessment and treatment planning for psychological disorders (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Black, R. A., Yang, Y., Beitra, D., & McCaffrey, S. (2015). Comparing fit and reliability estimates of a psychological instrument using second-order CFA, bifactor, and essentially tau-equivalent (coefficient alpha) models via AMOS 22. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914553551. (PMID: 10.1177/0734282914553551)
Meijer, R., Niessen, S., & Boevé, A. (2015). Rapporteren van Subtestscores in de Klinische Praktijk. De Psycholoog, 50, 34–42.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1968). Psychometric theory. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161962. (PMID: 10.2307/1161962)
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919. (PMID: 10.1177/1094428105284919)
Brown, T. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7. (PMID: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-726174714)
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks. Medical Care, 45, S22–S31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04. (PMID: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.0417443115)
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338. (PMID: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338)
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.
Good, D. V., Jo, M., Good, B. J., & Nassi, A. J. (1983). Patient requests in primary health care settings: Development and validation of a research instrument. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00845378. (PMID: 10.1007/BF008453786620371)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Dimensionality; Functioning; Measurement; Mental healthcare; Norm scores; WHODAS 2.0
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210612 Date Completed: 20211125 Latest Revision: 20230223
Update Code:: 20240104
PubMed Central ID:: PMC8481147
DOI:: 10.1007/s11136-021-02880-8
PMID:: 34117613
: Czasopismo naukowe

Pełny tekst

Purpose: Previous studies of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) interview version suggested a second-order model, with a general disability factor and six factors on a lower level. The goal of this study is to investigate if we can find support for a similar higher-order factor structure of the 36-item self-report version of the WHODAS 2.0 in a Dutch psychiatric outpatient sample. We aim to give special attention to the differences between the non-working group sample and the working group sample. Additionally, we intend to provide preliminary norms for clinical interpretation of the WHODAS 2.0 scores in psychiatric settings.
Methods: Patients seeking specialized ambulatory treatment, primarily for depressive or anxiety symptoms, completed the WHODAS 2.0 as part of the initial interview. The total sample consisted of 770 patients with a mean age of 37.5 years (SD = 13.3) of whom 280 were males and 490 were females. Several factorial compositions (i.e., one unidimensional model and two second-order models) were modeled using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Descriptive statistics, model-fit statistics, reliability of the (sub)scales, and preliminary norms for interpreting test scores are reported.
Results: For the non-working group, the second-order model with a general disability factor and six factors on a lower level, provided an adequate fit. Whereas, for the working group, the second-order model with a general disability factor and seven factors on a lower level seemed more appropriate. The WHODAS 2.0 36-item self-report form showed adequate levels of reliability. Percentile ranks and normalized T-scores are provided to aid clinical evaluations.
Conclusion: Our results lend support for a factorial structure of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item self-report version that is comparable to the interview version. While we conjecture that a seven-factor solution might give a better reflection of item content and item variance, further research is needed to assess the clinical relevance of such a model. At this point, we recommend using the second-order structure with six factors that matches past findings of the interview form.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)

Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.

Informacja