Psychometric evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury using Rasch Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Objectives:The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 12-item version (WHODAS-2.0) is a measure of disability representing six International Classification of Disability, Functioning, and Health activity and participation domains, including cognition, mobility, self-care, interpersonal functioning, life activities, and participation. Preliminary validation analyses of the WHODAS-2.0 as an outcome measure for mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) using classical test theory methods, were promising. The objective of this study was to further examine the psychometric properties of the WHODAS-2.0 for MTBI by applying Rasch Analysis, specifically considering unidimensionality and responsiveness to injury recovery.Method:Adults (n = 148) who were recruited from outpatient clinics in Vancouver following MTBI completed the WHODAS-2.0 at on average 10 weeks and then again 20 weeks following injury. We used Rasch analysis to determine overall and individual item fit to the Rasch model at each time point, differential item functioning (DIF), local independence, unidimensionality and person-separation reliability of the WHODAS 2.0 using RUMM2030 software. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate change in scores with time.Results:Participants were on average 40 years old (SD 12.1), predominantly Caucasian (66%), with slightly more women (66%) than men in the sample. The most common injury mechanism was motor vehicle accident (48%). Best fit to the unidimensional Rasch model at time one was achieved after locally dependent items were combined into three subtests or super-items (Chi square = 3.63, df 6, p = 0.73). The modified WHODAS-2.0 demonstrated high internal consistency (Person Separation Index (PSI) = 0.91) and there was no DIF across person factors examined. Time 2 analyses although exploratory, due to a small (n=80) sample, were also suggestive of good fit to the Rasch model and high internal consistency (Chi square = 22.21, df 22, p = 0.45; PSI = 0.90). The results support retaining the original response format and content of the measure. From these analyses we created ordinal-to-interval conversion tables that will allow more precise assessment of MTBI outcome across individuals on an interval scale. Finally changes in WHODAS-2.0 total raw scores between times one and two were significant (mean difference = 5.59; 95% confidence interval 4.05, 7.14; p<0.01), and person-item threshold distributions from Rasch analysis reflected reducing disability with time in this sample.Conclusions:With minor modifications, the WHODAS-2.0 demonstrated adequate properties as a unidimensional scale and showed responsiveness to improvement with time and MTBI recovery. Rasch analyses supported the WHODAS-2.0 as a psychometrically sound measure of outcome in adults after MTBI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,052 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».