The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

The Korean Society of Physical Therapy (대한물리치료학회)
권호 표지

Internal Consistency and Concurrent Validity of Korean Language Version of WHODAS 2.0: 12 Item-Self Administered

  • Lee, Hae-Jung (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical and Life Science, Silla University) ;
  • Kim, Da-Jeong (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical and Life Science, Silla University)
  • Received : 2011.11.14
  • Accepted : 2011.11.26
  • Published : 2011.12.26
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to validate the Korean version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (KWHODAS 2.0) in 12 item-self administered version (12-self). Methods: The KWHODAS 2.0 and Korean Functional Rating index (KFRI) were tested for internal consistency, ceiling and floor effects, and concurrent validity in 111 patients with low back pain and/or neck pain. Results: A very high level of internal consistency was shown for both instruments; ${\alpha}$=0.96 with KWHODAS 2.0; 12-self and ${\alpha}$=0.97 for KFRI. No ceiling and/or floor effects were found in both the instruments. The KWHODAS 2.0 and KFRI were highly correlated (r=0.77), and the relationship of each item between KWHODAS 2.0 and KFRI was ranging from r=0.09 to 0.72. Conclusion: We conclude that the KWHODAS 2.0: 12-self and KFRI are reliable and are valid instruments for the measurement of disability in Korean speaking patients with low back and/or neck pain. Both instruments, the KWHODAS 2.0; 12-Self and KFRI are now suitable for use in clinical practice and research applications.

Keywords

References

  1. Thayer R, Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychol Rep. 1967;20(2):663-678. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1967.20.2.663
  2. Korean National Statistical Office. Korean Statistical Information System. 2010.
  3. Fordyce W. Back pain in the workplace: Management of disability in nonspecific conditions: a report of the task force pain in the workplace of the international association for the study of pain. Seattle, IASP-Press, 1995:1-71.
  4. Cote P, Cassidy J, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey: The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine. 1998;23(15):1689-1698. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199808010-00015
  5. Picavet H, Schpouten J. Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequence and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain. 2008;33(4):s39-s51.
  6. Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll L et al. The burden and determine of neck pain in the general population: results of the bone and joint decade 2000-2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. Spine. 2008;33(4):473-477.
  7. Indahl A, Velund L, Reikeraas O. Good prognosis for low back pain when left untampered. Spine. 1995;20(4):437-477.
  8. Moya F, Grau M, Riesco N et al. Chronic low back pain: multispecialty assessment of 100 patients. Aten Primaria. 2000;26(4):239-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0212-6567(00)78653-7
  9. Vernon H, Mior s. The Neck Disability Index: A study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14(7):409-415.
  10. Wheeler A, Gookasian P, Baird A et al. Development of the neck pain and disability scale. Item analysis, face, and criterionrelated validity. Spine. 1999;24(13):1290. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199907010-00004
  11. Jordan A, Manniche C, Mosdal C et al. The Copenhagen neck functional disability scale: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21(8):520-527.
  12. BenDebba M, Heller J, Ducker T et al. Cervical spine outcomes questionnaires: Its development and psychometric properties. Spine. 2002;27(19):2116-2123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200210010-00007
  13. Roland M, Morris R A study of the natural history of low back pain. part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measures of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8(2):141-144. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004
  14. Fairbank J, Couper J, Davier J et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271-273.
  15. Kopec J, Esdaile J. Abrahamowiez M. et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale: measurement properties. Spine. 1995;20(3):341-352. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016
  16. Feise R, Menke J. Functional Rating Index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal condition. Spine, 2001;26(1):78-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200101010-00015
  17. Kim D, Lee S, Lee H et al. Validation of the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2005;30(5):E123-127. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000157172.00635.3a
  18. Lee H, Nicholson L, Adams R, Maher C et al. Development and psychometric testing of Korean language versions of 4 neck pain and disability questionnaires. Spine. 2006;31(16): 1841-1845. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000227268.35035.a5
  19. Shin S, Choi. JEffects of specific exercise on chronic neck pain in elderly women. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2010;22(3):1-8.
  20. Lee M, Song J, Kim J. The effects of neck exercise on neck and shoulder posture and pain in high school students. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2011;23(1):29-35. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.23.29
  21. Park S, Kim C, Lee D et al. The short term effects of the decompression ($KNX 7000^{(r)}$) and traction device on pain with chronic low back pain with or without radicular pain. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2011;23(5):29-34.
  22. Ustun T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S et al. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). World Health Organization. 2009.
  23. Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Ustun T et al. The definition of disability: what is in a name? Lancet. 2008;368(9543): 1219-1221.
  24. Chwastiak L, Korf M. Disability in depression and back pain: Evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS II) in a primary care setting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(6):507-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00051-9
  25. Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L et al. Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal condition. J Rehabili. 2011;42:724-734.
  26. Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L et al. Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal condition. J Rehabili. 2010;42(8):735-743. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0583
  27. McHorney C, Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status survey adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882
  28. Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M et al. Quality criteria are proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
  29. Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M et al. The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(3):382-390. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23314
  30. Bayar B, Bayar K, Yakut E et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index in older people with low back pain: preliminary report. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16(1):49-52.
  31. Childs J, Piva S. Psychometric properties of the functional rating index in patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):1008-1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0900-z
  32. Ustun T, Chatterji S, Konstanjsek N et al. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11);815-823. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.067231