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

Tzu Ying Chiu, Chia Feng Yen, Cheng Hsiu Chou, Jin Ding Lin, Ai Wen Hwang, Hua Fang Liao, Wen Chou Chi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) provided a standardized method for measuring the health and disability and the traditional Chinese version has not been developed. Aims: To describe the process of developing the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version and to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of this instrument. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was the process of translation of WHODAS 2.0 36-item version. Phase II was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 adults who were tested the validity and reliability of draft traditional Chinese version. Results: The reliability of Cronbach's α and ICC in the WHODAS 2.0 traditional Chinese version were 0.73-0.99 and 0.8-089, respectively. The content validity was good (r= 0.7-0.76), and the concurrent validity was excellent in comparison with the WHOQOL-BREF (p<. 0.5). The construct validity, the model was explained total variance was 67.26% by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) illustrated the traditional Chinese version was good to assess disability. There was a valid and reliable measurement scales for evaluating functioning and disability status. Conclusion: For disability eligibility system of Taiwan government to measure the disability, the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 provided valuable evidence to design the assessment instrument.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2812-2820
Number of pages9
JournalResearch in Developmental Disabilities
Volume35
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Taiwan
Reproducibility of Results
Appointments and Schedules
Statistical Factor Analysis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Health

Keywords

  • Disability identification
  • ICF
  • Traditional chinese version
  • Validity and reliability
  • WHODAS 2.0

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

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. / Chiu, Tzu Ying; Yen, Chia Feng; Chou, Cheng Hsiu; Lin, Jin Ding; Hwang, Ai Wen; Liao, Hua Fang; Chi, Wen Chou.

In: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 35, No. 11, 01.01.2014, p. 2812-2820.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chiu, Tzu Ying ; Yen, Chia Feng ; Chou, Cheng Hsiu ; Lin, Jin Ding ; Hwang, Ai Wen ; Liao, Hua Fang ; Chi, Wen Chou. / 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. In: Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2014 ; Vol. 35, No. 11. pp. 2812-2820.
@article{e546ffbbd22d4113aaa5ae15799dca23,
title = "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",
abstract = "Background: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) provided a standardized method for measuring the health and disability and the traditional Chinese version has not been developed. Aims: To describe the process of developing the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version and to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of this instrument. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was the process of translation of WHODAS 2.0 36-item version. Phase II was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 adults who were tested the validity and reliability of draft traditional Chinese version. Results: The reliability of Cronbach's α and ICC in the WHODAS 2.0 traditional Chinese version were 0.73-0.99 and 0.8-089, respectively. The content validity was good (r= 0.7-0.76), and the concurrent validity was excellent in comparison with the WHOQOL-BREF (p<. 0.5). The construct validity, the model was explained total variance was 67.26{\%} by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) illustrated the traditional Chinese version was good to assess disability. There was a valid and reliable measurement scales for evaluating functioning and disability status. Conclusion: For disability eligibility system of Taiwan government to measure the disability, the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 provided valuable evidence to design the assessment instrument.",
keywords = "Disability identification, ICF, Traditional chinese version, Validity and reliability, WHODAS 2.0",
author = "Chiu, {Tzu Ying} and Yen, {Chia Feng} and Chou, {Cheng Hsiu} and Lin, {Jin Ding} and Hwang, {Ai Wen} and Liao, {Hua Fang} and Chi, {Wen Chou}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "2812--2820",
journal = "Research in Developmental Disabilities",
issn = "0891-4222",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36 - item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan

T2 - Validity and reliability analyses

AU - Chiu, Tzu Ying

AU - Yen, Chia Feng

AU - Chou, Cheng Hsiu

AU - Lin, Jin Ding

AU - Hwang, Ai Wen

AU - Liao, Hua Fang

AU - Chi, Wen Chou

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Background: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) provided a standardized method for measuring the health and disability and the traditional Chinese version has not been developed. Aims: To describe the process of developing the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version and to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of this instrument. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was the process of translation of WHODAS 2.0 36-item version. Phase II was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 adults who were tested the validity and reliability of draft traditional Chinese version. Results: The reliability of Cronbach's α and ICC in the WHODAS 2.0 traditional Chinese version were 0.73-0.99 and 0.8-089, respectively. The content validity was good (r= 0.7-0.76), and the concurrent validity was excellent in comparison with the WHOQOL-BREF (p<. 0.5). The construct validity, the model was explained total variance was 67.26% by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) illustrated the traditional Chinese version was good to assess disability. There was a valid and reliable measurement scales for evaluating functioning and disability status. Conclusion: For disability eligibility system of Taiwan government to measure the disability, the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 provided valuable evidence to design the assessment instrument.

AB - Background: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) provided a standardized method for measuring the health and disability and the traditional Chinese version has not been developed. Aims: To describe the process of developing the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version and to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of this instrument. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was the process of translation of WHODAS 2.0 36-item version. Phase II was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 adults who were tested the validity and reliability of draft traditional Chinese version. Results: The reliability of Cronbach's α and ICC in the WHODAS 2.0 traditional Chinese version were 0.73-0.99 and 0.8-089, respectively. The content validity was good (r= 0.7-0.76), and the concurrent validity was excellent in comparison with the WHOQOL-BREF (p<. 0.5). The construct validity, the model was explained total variance was 67.26% by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) illustrated the traditional Chinese version was good to assess disability. There was a valid and reliable measurement scales for evaluating functioning and disability status. Conclusion: For disability eligibility system of Taiwan government to measure the disability, the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 provided valuable evidence to design the assessment instrument.

KW - Disability identification

KW - ICF

KW - Traditional chinese version

KW - Validity and reliability

KW - WHODAS 2.0

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905382057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905382057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009

DO - 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 2812

EP - 2820

JO - Research in Developmental Disabilities

JF - Research in Developmental Disabilities

SN - 0891-4222

IS - 11

ER -