Measurement Invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 Across Youth With and Without Physical or Mental Conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial evidence suggests that the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is valid and reliable in general youth populations; however, its psychometric properties in specific subgroups are less established. The primary objective was to test for measurement invariance of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in an epidemiological sample of youth aged 15 to 19 years with and without physical or mental conditions. Using data from 1,851 youth in the Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health, invariance was tested using multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Within-domain item correlations were significant and ordinal coefficient alphas were .91, .94, .93, and .92 for the healthy control, physical, mental, and comorbid groups, respectively. Partial measurement invariance was demonstrated for the WHODAS 2.0, with evidence of noninvariance for item residuals and factor variances related to cognition and participation. While these domain-specific comparisons may be biased, valid comparisons of overall disability across subgroups of youth can be made with confidence.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it