Tímarit hjúkrunarfræðinga - 2020, Blaðsíða 87

White, M. C., Randall, K., Alcorn, D., Greenland, R., Glasgo, C. og Shrime,
M. G. (2018). Measurement of patient reported disability using WHO-
DAS 2.0 before and aer surgical intervention in Madagascar. BMC
Health Service Research, 18, 305.
WHO (Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin). (2001). International classification
of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Genf: Alþjóðaheilbrigðismála-
stofnunin.
WHO (Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin) (2010). WHO disability assess-
ment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Sótt á https://www.who.int/classifi
cations/icf/whodasii/en/
WHO (Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin). (2011). World report on disability.
Genf: (Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin).
WHO (Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin), Háskólinn á Akureyri og Embætti
landlæknis. (2015). Alþjóðlegt flokkunarkerfi um færni, fötlun og heilsu:
ICF: Stutt útgáfa. Reykjavík: Embætti landlæknis.
ritrýnd grein • scientific paper
tímarit hjúkrunarfræðinga • 2. tbl. 96. árg. 2020 87
Aim: e International Classification of Function, Disability and
Health (ICF) accentuates the functioning of the individual in his
ordinary surroundings. e WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire (WHO
Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0), was developed to assess
health status and disability across different cultures and settings
in accordance with the ICF. e aim of this study was to translate
WHODAS 2.0 into Icelandic and validate its psychometric prop-
erties.
Methods: WHODAS 2.0 was translated into Icelandic and then
tested and discussed in a focus group with patients in rehabilita-
tion resulting in minor changes. Translation back into English
confirmed the accuracy of the Icelandic translation. e Icelandic
version was tested in two groups. One group (n = 81) consisted of
patients at admittance to rehabilitation, who answered WHODAS
2.0 once and filled in the SF-36 questionnaire. e second group
(n = 67) comprised chronic heart- and lung patients receiving
maintainance training. ey answered WHODAS 2.0 twice with
rthe interval of two weeks. Internal reliability and test-retest reli-
ability were tested using Cronbach’s alpha and intra class correla-
tion (ICC) analysis, respectively. Concurrent validity with the
SF-36 was tested using the Spearman’s rho correlation.
Results: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83–0.98 for the total score and the
subscales of WHODAS 2.0. Similarly, ICC was 0.77–0.94. Signifi-
cant correlation emerged in 36 of 48 comparisons, i.e. between all
relevant subscales of the two instruments (r = –0.25 to –0.7; p <
0.05).
Conclusions: e Icelandic translation of WHODAS 2.0 is reliable
and valid. It can now be used in assessment of health and disability
status of people who speak Icelandic, both in clinical situations
and for research purposes.
Keywords: WHODAS 2.0, Icelandic translation, validity, reliabil-
ity, SF-36v2
Correspondent: hafdisp@sak.is
English Summary
Petursdottir, H. H., Arnardottir, R. H., and Palmadottir G.
WHODAS 2.0 — Translation into Icelandic and testing of its psychometric properties