Convergent validity of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) among people with neck pain.

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-03-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0315676
Aleksandra Karklins, Guna Be Rzin A, Mikhail Saltychev
{"title":"Convergent validity of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) among people with neck pain.","authors":"Aleksandra Karklins, Guna Be Rzin A, Mikhail Saltychev","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0315676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the convergent validity of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) comparing it to Neck Disability Index (NDI).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional cohort study.</p><p><strong>Subjects/patients: </strong>962 patients visiting a university outpatient Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Clinic due to musculoskeletal complaints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Spearman´s rank correlation between WHODAS 2.0 and NDI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age was 49.2 (SD 14.5) years, 67% were women. Of all the possible 143 correlations between WHODAS 2.0 and NDI, 99 (69%) were positive, significant and strong or, at least, moderate. The correlation between the composite scores of two scales was strong. The weakest correlations were seen for the NDI items 'pain intensity and 'headaches'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most of the items and the composite scores of the WHODAS and the NDI demonstrated significant positive correlations. Pain intensity, as defined by the NDI, did not correlate with disability severity measured by the WHODAS 2.0. Also, the NDI items 'headaches' and 'sleeping' were associated with the WHODAS 2.0 only loosely. It seems that one of these two scales may not directly be substituted by another. When used simultaneously, The WHODAS and the NDI may complement each other covering comprehensively the different dimensions of functioning among people with neck pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 3","pages":"e0315676"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11896042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315676","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore the convergent validity of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) comparing it to Neck Disability Index (NDI).

Design: Cross-sectional cohort study.

Subjects/patients: 962 patients visiting a university outpatient Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Clinic due to musculoskeletal complaints.

Methods: Spearman´s rank correlation between WHODAS 2.0 and NDI.

Results: The average age was 49.2 (SD 14.5) years, 67% were women. Of all the possible 143 correlations between WHODAS 2.0 and NDI, 99 (69%) were positive, significant and strong or, at least, moderate. The correlation between the composite scores of two scales was strong. The weakest correlations were seen for the NDI items 'pain intensity and 'headaches'.

Conclusion: Most of the items and the composite scores of the WHODAS and the NDI demonstrated significant positive correlations. Pain intensity, as defined by the NDI, did not correlate with disability severity measured by the WHODAS 2.0. Also, the NDI items 'headaches' and 'sleeping' were associated with the WHODAS 2.0 only loosely. It seems that one of these two scales may not directly be substituted by another. When used simultaneously, The WHODAS and the NDI may complement each other covering comprehensively the different dimensions of functioning among people with neck pain.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
12项世界卫生组织残疾评估表(WHODAS 2.0)在颈部疼痛人群中的收敛效度。
目的:探讨世界卫生组织12项残疾评定表(WHODAS 2.0)与颈部残疾指数(NDI)的收敛效度。设计:横断面队列研究。研究对象/患者:962例因肌肉骨骼疾病就诊的大学门诊物理与康复医学门诊患者。方法对WHODAS 2.0与NDI进行Spearman秩相关分析。结果:患者平均年龄49.2岁(SD 14.5),女性占67%。在WHODAS 2.0与NDI之间可能存在的143种相关性中,有99种(69%)是正的、显著的、强的或至少是中度的。两个量表的综合得分之间有较强的相关性。NDI项目的“疼痛强度”和“头痛”的相关性最弱。结论:WHODAS与NDI的大部分项目及其综合得分呈显著正相关。NDI定义的疼痛强度与WHODAS 2.0测量的残疾严重程度无关。此外,NDI项目“头痛”和“睡眠”与WHODAS 2.0只有松散的关联。这两个尺度中的一个似乎不能直接被另一个代替。同时使用时,WHODAS和NDI可以相互补充,全面覆盖颈部疼痛患者的不同功能维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
期刊最新文献
Content-qualified antenatal care coverage in Lesotho: An ordinal logistic regression analysis of the 2023-2024 demographic and health survey. Comprehensive metabolomic characterization of defense reprogramming in Castanea mollissima under Oligonychus ununguis feeding stress. Modeling treatment and temperature effects on dengue transmission at the division level in Bangladesh. Cultural factors in mid- and later life volunteerism in the United States: A scoping review protocol. D-dimer and lower limb ultrasound as prognostic factors for recurrent deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1