P-1294 - Utility of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II) was developed for assessing disability. This study provides data on the validity and utility of the Spanish version of the WHODAS II in a large sample of patients with schizophrenia. Methods The sample included 352 patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. They completed a comprehensive assessment battery including measures of psychopathology, functionality and quality-of-life. A sub-sample of 36 patients was retested after six months to assess its temporal stability. Results Participation in society (6.3%) and Life activities (4.0%) were the domains with the highest percentage of missing data. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the total scale was 0.94, and the test-retest stability reached an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92. It became apparent that the six primary factor model represents a better fit with reality than other competing models. Relationships between the WHODAS and measures of symptomatology, social and work-related functionality, and quality-of-life were in the expected direction and the scale was ultimately found to be able to differentiate among patients with different degrees of disease severity and different work status. Conclusions Assessment of disability using appropriate tools is a crucial aspect in the context of mental health and, in this regard, the Spanish version of the WHODAS II shows ample evidence of validity in patients with schizophrenia. The most important contribution of this study is that it is the first analysing the Spanish version of the WHODAS II (36-item version) in a large sample of patients with schizophrenia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".