Agreement of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in parents and youth with physical illness living in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study modelled the factor structure and tested for measurement invariance between youth and parent reports on the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0; estimated agreement between informants; and, examined moderators of youth-parent discrepancies.Materials and Methods Data come from the baseline wave of the Multimorbidity in Youth across the Life-course study (n = 117). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to test for measurement invariance and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared informant scores. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement plots were used to examine the youth-parent agreement.Results The WHODAS 2.0 demonstrated measurement invariance [χ2 = 221.8(136), p < 0.01; RMSEA = 0.073 (0.055, 0.091); CFI = 0.962; and, SRMR = 0.078]. Youth typically reported more disability compared to parent proxies, with the exception of item Q5 (emotional). The agreement was low (ICC = 0.08–0.53). Youth sex moderated informant agreement such that more consistent agreement was seen for female youth (β = 0.54, p < .01) compared to male youth (β = 0.11, p = .29).Conclusions Youth and their parents interpret the construct of disability, as measured by the 12-item WHODAS 2.0, similarly. Thus, informant differences represent real differences that are not a consequence of error. Low parent-youth agreement reinforces the need for collecting multiple perspectives in the pediatric setting, especially for male youth.Implications for rehabilitationThe WHODAS 2.0 is one of the most widely used measures of disability and functioning.Measurement invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 suggests that youth and parents interpret the construct of disability similarly.Parent-youth agreement was low and youth typically report more disability compared to parent proxies.More consistent agreement with parents was found for female youth compared to male youth.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".