Preliminary Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability, factor structure, and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0 12 item version) in a sample of patients who were slow to recover from a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Participants were 79 adults with mTBI recruited from one of four specialty outpatient clinics in Vancouver, Canada. The WHODAS 2.0 12 item version is a disease-nonspecific 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. Results of analyses showed that the WHODAS 2.0 had high internal consistency and adequate construct and concurrent validity. A three factor structure emerged in this sample. The scale differentiated between patients with good and those with poor outcomes based on post-concussion syndrome, psychiatric, and pain status. Participants with multiple comorbidities reported the most disability on the WHODAS. Concurrent validity was also supported by lower WHODAS scores in participants who had returned to work versus those who had not. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the psychometric properties of the WHODAS 2.0 in a sample of people with mTBI. In summary, the WHODAS was sensitive to post-concussion syndrome after mTBI, as well as to health conditions that commonly co-occur with mTBI (e.g., mental health problems and chronic pain).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".