Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: This global systematic review evaluated the psychometric properties, namely the reliability and validity, of all WHODAS 2.0 versions and forms, including WHODAS-Child, which has been used in specific populations since 2010, in assessing alignment with the WHO manual. Materials and methods: Following PRISMA-COSMIN guideline, electronic databases and a curated personal library were searched up to April 30, 2025. Included were 143 empirical studies on WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child in samples with specific populations, spanning 43 countries. Results: Across five data extraction forms, the mean and median values of the aggregated data regarding the measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child are reported. The 36-item version demonstrated excellent internal consistency (mean α = 0.92), while the 12-item one showed good reliability (mean α = 0.88), and the test-retest reliability was strong for both (ICC = 0.89-0.91). Factor analyses supported the six-domain structure for the 36-item version and WHODAS-Child, though more variability was noted for the 12-item version. Cultural and age-related challenges emerged, indicating the need for contextual adaptations. Discussion and conclusions: The results showed good behavior of WHODAS 2.0, albeit slightly lower than the psychometric profiles described in the Manual. WHODAS-Child, though promising, requires further validation and refinement, particularly for cross-cultural applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Federici et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: