Back

Development and Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 for Persons with Disabilities Having Community Rehabilitation Services in Hong Kong

Choi, C. M. T.; Lee, Y. K.; Lee, H. L.; Chao, M. W. P.; Leung, S. L. A.; Lau, M. C. H.; Chan, L. S. E.

2025-06-02 health policy
10.1101/2025.06.01.25328755 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWorld Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) was developed in 2010 to cover core components and constructs in ICF and assess disability. Simplified Chinese version and modified version by Taiwanese experts are not applicable for Hong Kong population. Therefore, there is a need for developing Hong Kong Chinese version of WHODAS 2.0 (WHODAS2.0 TC-HK). The aim of this study is to develop the WHODAS2.0 TC-HK and to evaluate its validity and reliability for persons with disabilities having community services. MethodsWHODAS 2.0 was translated from the original English version to Hong Kong Chinese. 177 subjects with disabilities were recruited from the 4 community rehabilitation units subsidized by the government and held at a local non-governmental organization (NGO) to complete WHODAS2.0 TC-HK, Chinese HK version of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36 TC-HK) and Hong Kong version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Abbreviated (WHOQOL-BREF TC-HK). The average age was 55.2 (SD 15.1) years, and 53.1% were women. Test-retest reliability, Internal consistency, Convergent validity, Concurrent validity and Construct validity were examined. ResultsTest-retest reliability and internal consistency of WHODAS2.0 TC-HK were moderate to good and good, respectively. In convergent and concurrent validity, WHODAS2.0 TC-HK domains were negatively and moderately correlated to SF-36 TC-HK sub-scores and WHOQOL-BREF TC-HK sub-scores. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) did not show satisfactory fit indices and the factor loadings per item were fair. ConclusionsWHODAS2.0 TC-HK is a valid and reliable instrument in accessing disability based on ICF model for clients at community rehabilitation services in Hong Kong.

Published in PLOS One · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.