Stefano Federici
Alessandro Tosti
Elena A. Russo
Lorenzo Conigli- 1Department of Philosophy, Social & Human Sciences and Education, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
- 2LoveLife Associazione di Promozione Sociale (APS), Association for the Social Promotion of the Sexual Health of People with Disabilities, Perugia, Italy
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.
1 Introduction
The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic assessment instrument developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide a standardized method for measuring health and disability (1). Its development responded to the growing need for a theoretically grounded, internationally comparable measure of disability that could be applied consistently across clinical, epidemiological, and research settings.
Being a generic measure, the instrument does not target a specific disease—unlike the Supports Intensity Scale (2) or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule [ADOS (3)]; rather, WHODAS 2.0 has been designed to offer a standardized cross-cultural approach for assessing health and disability levels within the general population, regardless of any medical diagnosis (1, 4). This generic nature represents a key strength of the instrument, enabling meaningful comparisons of disability across heterogeneous health conditions and populations, like the Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF (5)] or the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (6).
The independence of the evaluations provided by WHODAS 2.0 from medical diagnoses is conceptually in line with the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [ICF (7)], which is endorsed by 191 countries as the normative system for classifying the health status of individuals (8). The ICF provides the most widely accepted and comprehensive model of disability, defined as an umbrella term denoting the negative aspects of human functioning due to the interaction between an individual’s health conditions and contextual factors manifesting as activity limitations and as restrictions in participation or problems that collide in typical life situations (at work or school, with peers, with the family, or the entire community) (7). Thus, this emphasizes the bidirectional and complex relationship between the health conditions of a person and their surrounding environmental factors, describing disability and health through a “biopsychosocial approach,” unlike previous classification systems (9).
Since disability is “complex, dynamic, multidimensional, and contested”, as stated on the World Report on Disability (10, p. 10), it is not possible to measure all its determinants with the same instrument at the same time. Therefore, the optimum instrument for measuring disability is one that best defines the property of disability to be measured (9, 11). In short, an elixir for measuring disability is neither possible nor desirable. That said, the unique feature of WHODAS 2.0 that distinguishes it from other disability measurements is its direct correlation to, and operationalization of, the ICF (1).
WHODAS was disseminated in 1999 in a beta version (WHODAS II) based on the WHO Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule (12), which was designed to assess the extent of disability associated with a psychiatric condition. A guide to the use of WHODAS II was published in 2004 (13), but the publication of Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in 2010 (1) (hereafter referred to as the Manual) marked the final version, which is referred to by the acronym WHODAS 2.0. The items of WHODAS 2.0 were selected from a large pool of ICF items that were subjected to field trials in 19 countries (1) and have been translated into more than 47 languages and dialects (9). Although other generic instruments for assessing health status can also be associated with the ICF, they do not make clear distinctions between symptom measurement, disability, and subjective appraisal. WHODAS 2.0 stands out in that it covers the ICF domains in their entirety and its applicability extends to all diseases, including physical, mental, and substance use disorders (1).
Thus, the structure and features of WHODAS 2.0 are also conceptually compatible with the atheoretical and polythetic model of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), developed by the American Psychiatric Association (14). In 1994, the DSM-IV used the GAF scale and its developed versions to assess psychiatric disability; however, when the theoretical and disability model promoted by the ICF was adopted in the DSM-5, the GAF proved inadequate for evaluating disability not as a direct consequence of an impairment. It is, therefore, not surprising that WHODAS 2.0 comes bundled with the DSM-5, with a view to replacing the more limited GAF as a standard method for assessing global disability levels for mental disorders.
This global visibility and reputation have spurred many investigations to apply it to various populations around the world, acquiring greater significance in collecting prevalence data across a variety of disabilities, disorders, and diagnoses.
WHODAS 2.0 is structured based on the activity and participation domains outlined by the ICF, offering a framework for assessing functioning across six domains: Cognition, Mobility, Self-care, Getting along, Life activities, and Participation.
Based on this structure, three versions of WHODAS 2.0 have been implemented: the 36-item version, the 12-item version, and the combined 12 + 24-item version. The 36-item and the 12-item paper-based versions were released in three forms: interview-administered, self-administered, and proxy-administered. The 12 + 24-item paper-based version was released only as an interview-administered option. The 12-item version accounts for 81% of the variance of the full 36-item version and provides results in approximately five minutes if self-administered and twenty minutes if administered via interview (1). The most widely administered versions of WHODAS 2.0 are the original 36-item and the shortened 12-item versions, both of which have been found to be reliable, valid, and sensitive to change.
According to the Manual, the 36-item version “takes into account the paid-work status of the respondent, with the 32-item being used if the respondent is not in gainful employment” (1, p. 41). The score of the 32-item WHODAS 2.0 is comparable to that of the full 36-item version.
WHODAS 2.0 can be scored using two approaches: the simple score, which sums item scores directly, and the complex score, based on item response theory, which adjusts for item difficulty. Two unresolved issues concern scoring. The WHO provides two calculation algorithms, an SPSS version in the Manual (1, pp. 58–61) and an online Excel version (15), but they yield inconsistent procedures. Moreover, the manual does not clarify how to handle missing data, particularly whether responses marked as “Not applicable” should be treated like missing data (16).
The development of the WHODAS 2.0 Manual was based on epidemiological data on disability worldwide, which revealed that WHODAS 2.0 is reliable and valid for general adult populations. However, the extent to which these psychometric properties generalize to specific clinical populations remains an open empirical question.
The WHODAS-Child was adapted for children and youth from the adult WHODAS 2.0 by the DSM-5 Impairment/Disability workgroup (17) in response to the need for a standardized instrument based on the ICF for children and youth [ICF-CY (18)]. Two versions of the WHODAS-Child were proposed (19): the 36-item patient version and the seven-item clinician version. During the WHODAS-Child 36-item adaptation process, the workgroup aimed to measure the constructs in a developmentally appropriate manner while considering the child’s environment (20). Consequently, some WHODAS 2.0 items were modified. However, at the time of the Manual’s publication, empirical evidence regarding the psychometric properties of a version of WHODAS 2.0 for children and youth was lacking because the version was still under development (Manual, p. 33).
With regard to the use of the WHODAS 2.0 Manual, two systematic reviews (9, 21) have examined the performance of this instrument, each of which had different objectives. Federici et al. (9) examined a total of 810 papers in investigating the use of the 12- and 36-item versions of WHODAS 2.0 in scientific literature from 1999 to 2015 and identified 27 research fields in which WHODAS 2.0 was used, including mental disorders, geriatrics, epidemiology, and neurology. These fields used WHODAS 2.0 in nearly 100 countries and almost 50 languages and dialects, which made it the “leading measure of disability worldwide” (9, p. 2354) at the time of writing, confirming its unidimensional structure across different research fields. However, they also recognized that the included studies had limitations, such as when self-reporting was not possible or difficult. In contrast, Saltychev et al. (21) focused on the available evidence on the psychometric properties of the self-administered 12-item WHODAS 2.0. The researchers evaluated 14 observational studies conducted on general adult populations and individuals with nonacute physical disabilities, and the study (21) revealed that the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is multidimensional rather than unidimensional. This finding aligns with the desired characteristics of a tool of this nature, as well as with the factor structure of WHODAS 2.0, as described in the Manual. Additionally, the study found that WHODAS 2.0 may underreport actual disability experiences. Due to the absence of a ceiling effect, however, it is inadequate for use as a screening tool. Despite these limitations, Saltychev et al. (21) concluded that, based on the literature reviewed, WHODAS 2.0 has internal consistency and is reliable for test-retest situations.
As previously discussed, the adoption of WHODAS 2.0 in the DSM-5 has led to a notable increase in its visibility, and it is now used beyond epidemiological investigations and encompasses diverse patient populations across various cultural contexts.
The first objective of the present study is to verify whether the measurement characteristics (reliability: internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability; and validity: convergent and concurrent, correlations, and factor structure) of any version (36-item, 12-item, 12 + 24-item) and form (interviewer-, self-, and proxy-administered) of WHODAS, as reported in psychometric studies on specific populations (e.g., with mental disorders, neurological disorders, specific disabilities, etc.), confirm or not those reported in the Manual for the general population.
A second objective of this review is to describe the measurement characteristics (reliability: internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability; and validity: convergent and concurrent, correlations, and factor structure) of WHODAS-Child when administered to specific populations (e.g., children and youth with neurodevelopmental disorders, mental disorders, etc.). Due to the lack of psychometric data for this version when the Manual was published, a thorough analysis of the existing evidence is necessary to determine its applicability, advantages, and limitations in youth and pediatric populations.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Study design
This study is a systematic review of the measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 when administered to specific populations, and the measurement characteristics of WHODAS-Child. For transparent and consistent reporting of findings, data extraction and quality assessment (including a risk of bias evaluation) of the included studies were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline for reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) 2024 (22). PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 is a stand-alone extension of PRISMA 2020 (23). A completed PRISMA-COSMIN checklist for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments is provided in Supplementary File S1.
2.2 Eligibility criteria
The present research encompasses: (i) empirical studies on psychometric properties of any version (including the Child version) or form of WHODAS 2.0 carried out from 2010 to 30 April 2025 on a specific population. For this population, we target a sample of individuals who share a common health condition, such as a mental health condition (e.g., depression, schizophrenia, trauma) or a developmental disability (e.g., autistic spectrum disorder); (ii) peer-reviewed journal articles, abstracts, and extended abstracts of international conference proceedings with a scientific committee; (iii) papers written in any language, provided they are indexed in English so that they have been indexed in the main databases and registers.
2.3 Information sources
A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases of PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus, employing a combination of keywords related to WHODAS 2.0, with the most recent search taking place on April 30, 2025. Furthermore, a personal library comprising 5,042 references, meticulously curated by the primary author, was thoroughly reviewed. This personal library under consideration encompasses all publications from the year 2000 to the present that feature the term “WHODAS” in their titles, abstracts, or body text.
2.4 Search strategy
In order to be more inclusive, an initial record search was conducted by entering search terms referring to the various acronyms and abbreviations of the World Health Organization – Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Therefore, the text string used was: [“WHODAS” OR “WHO-DAS” OR “WHODAS 2.0” OR “WHO-DAS 2.0” OR “Disability Assessment Schedule”], entered in the generic field of the databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost—all databases) without further specification regarding the nature of the study or the population sample investigated. This search strategy relied exclusively on free-text keywords, as WHODAS-related terms are not consistently indexed across databases and are not systematically represented within controlled vocabularies. Therefore, no Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms or other thesaurus-based indexing terms were applied.
2.5 Selection process
The records were uploaded to the EndNote 2025 reference manager (Clarivate Analytics, 2025) and evaluated through a blind qualitative analysis by the authors AT and LC. The initial screening was performed using the article abstracts, followed by selection based on the main text documents. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist (22).
An initial 95% agreement was reached concerning the records in question. Krippendorff’s alpha (24) was found to be 0.85, which is an adequate value for the achievement of the research work. The remaining 5% of the records were discussed among all authors until complete consensus was reached.
3 Results
3.1 Study selection
On April 30, 2025, the number of publications retrieved from each electronic database was as follows: PubMed: 1,415; Scopus: 1,867; and EBSCOhost (all databases): 1,026, for a total of 4,308 publications. After removing 2,289 duplicates, a selection process was conducted on the 2,019 remaining records, leaving 334 records sought for retrieval. Additionally, 116 papers from the primary author’s personal library that complied with the inclusion criteria were included, resulting in a total of 450 records. AT and LC screened the abstracts of 450 records to assess whether they might meet the predefined eligibility criteria. A total of 171 studies were excluded at this stage (137 from databases and registers, 34 from other methods). The same two authors then evaluated these 279 records and excluded 136 of them (92 from databases and registers, 44 from other methods) because, although they were psychometric studies of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child, statistical analyses that met our objectives (internal consistency, test-retest and interrater reliability, convergent and concurrent validity, correlations and factor structure) were missing or only partially reported. Therefore, these studies were ineligible because the results for the outcome of interest were not reported [e.g., (25, 26)].
A total of 143 records were included in the review (20, 27–168), which underwent psychometric data extraction and qualitative text evaluation. The selection process is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Four-phase flow diagram of the systematic review according to PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 (22).
3.2 Study characteristics
A total of 60 data items were extracted from each of the 143 included studies (e.g., research field, population, country, language, measures correlated, inter-item correlation, convergent validity, concurrent validity, factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, etc.) as shown in Supplementary Table S2. For the categories of country, language, form, and version of WHODAS 2.0, missing data are indicated with N/A in Supplementary Table S2 if they were not specified in the included study. The “country” category refers to the location where WHODAS 2.0 or WHODAS-Child was administered to participants, regardless of their country of origin. In terms of the “study design” category, the included studies were classified into cross-sectional studies and cohort studies. We classified as cohort studies those longitudinal studies that involved the sampling of a cohort (e.g., individuals with schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, diabetes, or chronic stroke), defined as a group of individuals who share a defining characteristic, even if they do not share a common event (169). We classified those observational studies that analyzed data from a population at a single point in time as cross-sectional studies. In studies [e.g., (28, 134)] where a correlation analysis with external measures [e.g., ADOS (3)] was conducted, if the text did not specify whether the type of validity was convergent or concurrent, the correlation coefficient values (r, r², Kendall’s Tau, Kendall’s Tau-B) were reported in separate columns without further specification. With respect to the “research field” category, we have adopted the same classification used in the Federici et al. review (9). When an included study (27, 43, 76, 114, 124) investigated samples belonging to more than one research field, all fields were reported.
3.3 General characteristics of the studies
A total of 186 WHODAS 2.0 administrations were identified across the 143 included studies (a single included study may report results from multiple administrations). For example, Aslan Kunt et al. (31) applied all forms (interviewer-administered, self-administered, and proxy-administered) of two WHODAS 2.0 versions (36-item and 12-item). None of the included studies administered the 12 + 24-item version. Out of a total of 100 administrations (N = 186), only six (3%) utilized the WHODAS-Child version (20, 63, 66, 143, 155), making it the least widely used, while the 36-item version was employed most frequently (49%), followed by the 12-item one (42%). The self-administered form of WHODAS 2.0 was the most common for both the 12- and 36-item versions, accounting for 30% of all administrations. As for the forms used to administer WHODAS-Child, the study by Federici et al. (66) was the only one to use the seven-item clinician-administered form. The authors compared this form with data obtained from the 36-item patient-administered one and found a weak correlation (r = 0.39, p < 0.01).
The included studies were conducted across 43 countries on all continents (Figure 2), and the measure was administered in 36 languages and dialects, including all major European languages with both alphabetic and nonalphabetic systems (Supplementary Table S2). The countries are clustered by geographical area in Figure 2. Thus, Ukraine (113, 154) and the United Kingdom (163) were included among the European countries, while the Russian Federation (71) and Turkey (31) were among the Asiatic ones.
Figure 2. Geographical areas where the 143 included studies were conducted. Europe includes the United Kingdom and Ukraine; Asia includes the Russian Federation and Turkey.
WHODAS 2.0 was applied across 16 research fields (Supplementary Table S2). The highest usage was observed in mental health (n = 38; 27%) (27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 42, 43, 65, 72–76, 80, 81, 85, 92, 93, 97–99, 101, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 126, 146, 149, 152, 153, 158, 159, 161, 168), disability and rehabilitation (n = 34; 24%) (36, 43, 47, 50, 51, 54, 62, 67–69, 77–79, 82, 84, 86, 87, 95, 96, 100, 102, 104, 109, 117, 121–123, 129, 133, 134, 137, 150, 157, 160), and neurology (n = 27; 19%) (30, 33, 43, 45, 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 64, 76, 88, 107, 110, 114, 119, 120, 124, 127, 130, 138, 140, 141, 147, 162, 163, 165). These three areas together accounted for 67% (n = 96) of all included studies.
3.4 Measurement characteristics
Raw, disaggregated data on the measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 were extracted from each of the included studies and are reported in Supplementary Table S2. In the following subsections, for each of the psychometric characteristics examined (reliability: Cronbach’s alpha, test-retest, interrater reliability; validity: concurrent validity, convergent validity, factor analysis), only the aggregated values of the central tendency data (mean and median) with the coefficient of variation (CV = M/SD×100) and the statistically significant results (p < 0.05) from the 143 included studies are reported (Table 1).
Table 1. Mean and median value of aggregated data regarding measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 from all included studies.
In addition, Summary Table 2 reports psychometric data from WHODAS-Child. Summary Tables 3–5 report psychometric data from each of the three domains most represented by the studies (mental health, Table 3; disability and rehabilitation, Table 4; and neurology, Table 5). Of the 143 studies included, those that did not clearly specify which version of WHODAS 2.0 (12-item or 36-item) was employed (33, 46, 57, 79, 85, 98, 114, 159, 160) were excluded from the aggregated scoring analyses. In addition, reported range values (i.e., minimum and maximum but not score points) were not included in the calculation of the mean and median aggregated data [e.g., (48, 119)].
Table 2. Mean and median value of aggregated data regarding measurement characteristics of WHODAS-child from all included studies (20, 63, 66, 143, 155).
Table 3. Mean and median value of aggregated data measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 from all included studies in the mental health field (27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 42, 43, 65, 72–76, 80, 81, 92, 93, 97, 99, 101, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 126, 146, 149, 152, 153, 158, 161, 168).
Table 4. Mean and median value of aggregated data measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 from all included studies in the disability and rehabilitation field (36, 43, 47, 50, 51, 54, 62, 67–69, 77, 78, 82, 84, 86, 87, 95, 96, 100, 102, 104, 109, 117, 121–123, 129, 133, 134, 137, 150, 157).
Table 5. Mean and median value of aggregated data measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 from all included studies in the neurology field (30, 43, 45, 49, 52, 55, 64, 76, 88, 107, 110, 119, 120, 124, 127, 130, 138, 140, 141, 147, 162, 163, 165).
3.5 Reliability properties (internal consistency, test-retest, interrater reliability)
Among the 143 studies that were included in the analysis, 19 (13%) assessed the test-retest reliability of the 36-item version (37, 39, 42, 44, 53, 54, 56, 84, 101, 102, 104, 107, 120, 127, 130, 134, 137, 145, 157), while nine (6%) focused on the 12-item version (27, 32, 42, 55, 96, 109, 117, 129, 164). The results indicated that both the 36-item and 12-item versions demonstrated moderate to strong reliability, with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values of 0.89 and 0.93 for the median and 0.89 (CV = 8.96%) and 0.91 (CV = 9.93%) for the mean, respectively, and corresponding ρ-values of 0.86 and 0.98 for the median and 0.86 (CV = 18.09%) and 0.98 (only a data score was reported) for the mean, respectively.
A total of 104 (73%) included studies assessed internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha, focusing on the 36-item (n = 59; 40%) (29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39–42, 44, 47–49, 51–54, 56, 60, 61, 64, 65, 73–75, 82, 84, 90, 92, 94, 100–102, 104, 106–108, 110, 113, 115, 120, 127, 130, 133–137, 142, 145, 146, 149, 151, 157, 163–167) and 12-item (n = 41; 29%) (27, 28, 31, 32, 42, 43, 45, 50, 55, 59, 62, 68, 70, 77, 80, 81, 83, 86, 88, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 103, 109, 110, 117, 118, 124, 129, 131, 136, 140, 141, 144, 147, 148, 150, 155, 158, 163) versions, and WHODAS-Child (n = 5; 3%) (20, 63, 66, 143, 155). Only a small fraction used McDonald’s omega coefficient (n = 3; 2%) (34, 63, 100). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from acceptable (α ≥ 0.7) to excellent (α ≥ 0.9), with a value of 0.93 for the median and 0.92 for the mean (CV = 5.2%) for the 36-item version. For the 12-item version, the range extended from questionable (α < 0.7) to excellent, with a value of 0.89 for the median and 0.88 for the mean (CV = 7.09%). In the 36-item version, the domain with the lowest internal consistency was “Self-Care,” with a median value of 0.8 and a mean value of 0.77 (CV = 13.96%), while “Life Activities” showed the highest median value (α = 0.91). The domains “Life Activities” and “Life Activities – Household” showed the highest mean value of 0.88 (CV = 13.17%; CV = 9.82%). For the 12-item version, domain alphas generally fell between acceptable (α ≥ 0.7) and good (α ≥ 0.8), except for the “Life Activities – School and Work” domain, which was reported in only one study (80) with a questionable value (α = 0.68). WHODAS-Child showed a lower score point than WHODAS 2.0, with a score of 0.87 both for the median and mean (CV = 4.44%). Furthermore, the domains “Mobility,” “Self-Care,” and “Participation” had questionable alpha values ranging from 0.67 to 0.69. Domain-specific alpha values are detailed in Supplementary Table S2.
Interrater reliability was assessed in a total of nine of the included studies (20, 27, 67, 75, 107, 111, 119, 134, 165). The 36-item version yielded moderate to strong results with Pearson and ICC values, respectively, of 0.5 and 0.93 for the median and of 0.48 (CV = 0.25%) and 0.92 (CV = 0.06%) for the mean (75, 107, 111, 119, 134, 165). The 12-item version showed weak and moderate agreements when measured employing ICC index, with a median of 0.42 and a mean of 0.57 (CV = 0.49%) (27, 67). Interrater reliability for WHODAS-Child was investigated by Scorza et al., (20) who reported an ICC score of 0.88.
3.6 Validity properties
Of the 143 included studies, a total of 62 (43%) explored the factor structure of WHODAS 2.0 (36-item and 12-item versions) using the following analyses: Six studies (4%) (52, 76, 78, 118, 156, 162) ran a principal component analysis (PCA), 31 studies (22%) (28, 32, 39, 42, 50, 52, 53, 59, 65, 71, 76, 78, 84, 109, 113, 115, 118, 120, 122, 123, 128, 129, 135, 138–140, 144, 148, 162, 165, 167) an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 39 studies (27%) (27, 28, 34, 42, 43, 45, 51, 53, 59, 62, 65, 67–69, 73, 74, 80–82, 89, 90, 93, 94, 101, 106, 110, 120, 123, 128, 130, 135, 136, 138, 150, 153, 158, 161, 162, 164) a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and three studies (2%) (124, 144, 155) ran a confirmatory tetrad analysis (CTA). Only three of the included studies (52, 113, 115) that used the EFA statistical technique matched the six-domain structure of the 36-item version proposed by the Manual. Conversely, the structure of the 12-item version was not found to replicate the six-domain structure as proposed in the Manual for the 36-item version when the EFA technique was adopted. When the CFA technique was employed on the 36-item version (n = 19), a factorial structure as proposed in the Manual was found 14 (74%) times in the included studies (42, 51, 65, 73, 74, 82, 90, 94, 101, 106, 120, 128, 130, 161). The factor structure of the 12-item version replicated the six-domain structure as proposed in the Manual for the 36-item version. This was demonstrated in 13 out of 22 included studies that employed it (59%) (43, 45, 62, 67–69, 80, 81, 110, 136, 153, 158, 164).
Three included studies investigated the factor structure of WHODAS-Child: Díaz-Castro et al. (63) used EFA and CFA; Scorza et al. (20) employed CFA; and Umucu et al. (155) utilized EFA and CTA. As regards the WHODAS-Child factor structure, Díaz-Castro et al. (63) confirmed the six-domain structure, whereas Umucu et al. (155) reported a two-factor structure.
As shown in Supplementary Table S2, WHODAS 2.0 was correlated with health measures, indices, functional health, well-being, and quality of life. The values below (Pearson’s correlation [r], Spearman’s correlation [ρ], Kendall’s Tau [τ], and Kendall’s Tau-b [τb]) refer to the four measures most commonly correlated with the 36- and 12-item versions of WHODAS 2.0, at a significance level of less than 0.05: the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form [SF (170)], the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale [WHOQOL (171)], the Global Assessment of Functioning scale [GAF (172)], and the European Quality of life – 5 dimensions instrument [EQ-5D (173)]. The 36-item version demonstrated negative correlations with several outcome measures, considering both median and mean values. Specifically, in relation to the SF (37, 40, 44, 54, 61, 102, 113, 145, 154), the median correlations were r = -0.56, τ = -0.64, and ρ = -0.71, while the mean correlations were r = -0.62, τ = -0.64, and ρ = -0.45, with CV ranging from 27.59% to 127.6%. With regard to the WHOQOL-BREF (171), the median correlation was ρ = -0.59 and the mean was ρ = -0.58, with a CV of 28%. Finally, for the GAF (5), the median correlation was r = -0.4 and the mean was r = -0.21, with a CV of 216.84%.
A positive Pearson correlation was identified between the 12-item version and the GAF (42, 72, 97), as indicated by a median value of 0.6 and a mean value of 0.42 (CV = 107.45%). However, a negative median (r = -0.63; ρ = -0.78) and mean (r = -0.58; ρ = -0.69; CV ranging from 16.91% to 21.5%) correlation was shown with the SF (83, 91, 96, 109). Likewise, EQ-5D showed a negative correlation with WHODAS 2.0, as indicated by the median (r = -0.56; ρ = -0.66) and mean values (r = -0.57, CV = 9.99%; ρ = -0.66) (45, 58, 70, 131) (Table 1).
Federici et al. (66) also found positive Spearman correlations between the seven-item WHODAS-Child form for clinicians and the 36-item WHODAS-Child form for patients and the ADOS, with respective correlations of ρ = 0.27 and ρ = 0.29 (Table 2).
3.7 Summary tables
The following two tables report the mean and median values of the aggregated data regarding the measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 (Table 1) and WHODAS-Child (Table 2) from all the included studies. The subsequent three tables report the mean and median values of the aggregated data for the three most represented research fields: mental health (Table 3), disability and rehabilitation (Table 4), and neurology (Table 5). The following cutoff criteria were applied to all data reported in the five tables: Cronbach’s alpha: 0.5 > x = unacceptable; 0.6 > x ≥ 0.5 = poor; 0.7 > x ≥ 0.6 = questionable; 0.8 > x ≥ 0.7 = acceptable; 0.9 > x ≥ 0.8 = good; x ≥ 0.9 = excellent (174); ICC: x ≤ 0.4 = weak; 0.75 > x > 0.4 = moderate; x ≥ 0.75 = strong (175); Pearson’s correlation (r), Spearman’s correlation (ρ), Kendall’s Tau (τ), and Kendall’s Tau-b (τb): 0.1 > x = trivial; 0.39 ≥ x ≥ 0.1 = weak; 0.69 ≥ x ≥ 0.4 = moderate; 0.9 ≥ x ≥ 0.7 = strong (176).
4 Discussion
The present systematic review examined 143 (20, 27–168) studies that investigated the measurement properties of WHODAS 2.0 (36-item, 12-item, 12 + 24-item) and its adaptation for children and youth (WHODAS-Child) as reported in psychometric studies on specific populations from 2010 up to today. The aim was to verify whether or not these characteristics confirm those reported in the Manual for the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) by Üstün et al. (1) for the general population.
4.1 Test-retest reliability
The mean and median values for test-retest reliability of the 12-item version indicate excellent performance of the measure. These data are not reported in the Manual, which refers only to the 36-item version. Compared to the 36-item version, the test-retest reliability values do not confirm those in the Manual, which reports stronger values (ICC = 0.98) than the mean and median values (ICC = 0.89) obtained from our aggregate data, which show good performance. These findings indicated that the test demonstrated adequate performance. The frequency distribution of the aggregated scores shows low variability (CV < 10%), and studies that deviate negatively from the mean have ICC values that never fall below the acceptable range for both the 12-item (27) and the 36-item (127, 137) scales.
Of the five included studies of WHODAS-Child, only one (20) measured test-retest validity twice, with both cases showing a strong performance. This finding is not comparable to that of the Manual, which at the time of publication was still investigating the use of the children and youth version.
4.2 Cronbach’s alpha
The Manual reports Cronbach’s alpha scores for the 36-item WHODAS 2.0, both for each of the six domains (cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation) and for total scores. No such scores are reported for the 12-item version. Only about 3% of the studies included reported all seven alpha values [e.g., (44, 54, 62, 75, 163, 165)]. With regard to the internal consistency of the total score, the mean and median show higher values for the 36-item version than for the 12-item one. The mean and median values of the 36-item version replicate the Manual values with very low variability (CV < 10%). Some studies report only acceptable values [e.g., (35, 135)], although none of these interpret them as compromising the internal reliability of the measurement.
The behavior of the measure for each of the six domains differs from the total score. In fact, the aggregate scores from the reviewed studies for each of the six domains are lower than the alpha scores reported as excellent in the Manual. The mean scores range from acceptable (self-care and getting along) to good (cognition, mobility, life activities, and participation), and the median scores are all in the good range. However, there is some variability (23.1% ≥ CV ≥ 7.51%) across studies in the Cronbach’s alpha values of the six domains. For example, the results obtained by Badu et al. (34) on a sample of consumers of mental health services in Ghana essentially replicate the internal consistency values of the Manual, with the authors claiming that WHODAS 2.0 is a reliable measure with satisfactory psychometric properties. In contrast to the previous study, de Castro (60) found that the internal consistency for the getting along domain had an unacceptable Cronbach’s alpha.
The internal consistency scores for the 12-item version, which are good for the total score in terms of mean and median and for the six domains range between questionable and good, cannot be compared with those in the Manual because they are missing. Ćwirlej-Sozańska et al. (55), who conducted a study on a sample of people with Huntington’s disease, reported Cronbach’s alpha values for the entire scale of 0.97 and for individual domains ranging from 0.95 to 0.97. In contrast, Holmberg et al. (81) found questionable scores for half of the domains in patients with psychotic disorders, although the overall alpha was considered good.
As with the previous 12-item version, comparable data with the Manual for WHODAS-Child are not available. The five studies included here (20, 63, 66, 143, 155) agree on a good value for the total score. The values of the individual domains have only been calculated by Federici et al. (66) and Díaz-Castro et al. (63), both of which converge on values that range from acceptable for cognition to excellent for life activities, while diverging for the remaining domains.
4.3 Factor structure
According to the Manual, factor structure analyses conducted using confirmatory factor analysis on the 36-item version of the scale “revealed a two-level hierarchical structure, with a general disability factor feeding into the six domains” (1, p. 20). In addition, the same Manual states that each of the six domains has a unidimensional structure. This structure thus distributed (1 + 6) was found in the vast majority of the cases (74%) in the reviewed studies (34, 42, 51, 53, 65, 73, 74, 82, 90, 94, 101, 106, 110, 120, 128, 130, 135, 161) that have ascertained the factor structure. However, five studies (34, 53, 110, 135, 161) did not find this distribution. Williams et al. (161) advocate a seven-factor solution by suggesting that the life activities domain be split into two subscales because it contains items of a different nature: household items and work/school items. The study by Park et al. (110) is of the same opinion. Less consensus on a 6 + 1 structure was found using EFA (39, 52, 53, 65, 76, 78, 84, 113, 115, 120, 128, 135, 165, 167).
The factorial structure of the 12-item version remains debated, as already noted by Saltychev et al. (21) in their systematic review of the psychometric properties of the 12-item version self-administered in the general population and in people with nonacute physical causes of disability. The authors stated that the conclusions of the review by Federici et al. (9) on the factorial structure of the 12-item version were too optimistic, a structural weakness that is particularly evident when the EFA technique is used. In this case, none of the 18 times for which this analysis was performed replicated a six-factor structure (28, 32, 42, 50, 59, 71, 109, 118, 122, 123, 129, 138–140, 144, 148, 162).
A six-factor structure was found in the WHODAS-Child factor analyses when examined with CFA (20, 63) and EFA (63, 155).
4.4 Concurrent validity
The mean and median values of correlations with health measures (e.g., SF, WHOQOL) obtained from the included studies refer only to the total scores obtained on WHODAS 2.0. In contrast, in the Manual, correlation scores are calculated only for each domain. Nevertheless, according to our results, there is generally a negative satisfactory correlation with the main related health measures. This supports the specificity of the WHODAS 2.0 disability construct with respect to related but not coincident health domains, confirming the findings as reported in the Manual. The same can be said for the correlations between WHODAS-Child and the ADOS (3) carried out by Federici et al. (66).
Findings on concurrent validity therefore indicate that WHODAS 2.0, when compared with widely used generic health and quality-of-life measures such as the SF-36 or WHOQOL, is designed to primarily capture activity limitations and participation restrictions rather than perceived health status or subjective well-being. This conceptual focus, grounded in the ICF-based biopsychosocial model of disability, makes WHODAS 2.0 particularly suitable for contexts in which disability is operationalized beyond symptom severity or health-related quality of life. At the same time, it provides a theoretical explanation for the moderate correlations observed with generic health and quality-of-life measures.
4.5 General considerations
Since the publication of the Manual, WHODAS 2.0 has seen increasing use in various research fields, most frequently in mental health, followed by disability and rehabilitation, and neurology. These findings reinforce the role of WHODAS 2.0 as a core measure of disability in the DSM-5 and the notion that it effectively operationalizes the ICF model, especially in fields where a biopsychosocial perspective is crucial (1).
Notably, the 12-item version is frequently used, likely because of its practicality. Despite its conciseness, its psychometric properties are consistent with those of the 36-item version, though its reliability indices are slightly lower. These findings support using the 12-item version in large-scale screenings and surveys where limitations are critical while maintaining satisfactory validity and reliability levels (32).
Both the 12-item and 36-item versions were primarily self-administered, except in research on disability and rehabilitation, where the interview form prevailed. This suggests that the method of administration is often adapted to the characteristics of the sample.
Several studies [e.g., (63, 74, 84, 106, 167)] have criticized the clarity, adaptability, and feasibility of adapting the wording to low-income or non-Western contexts, which significantly compromises the interpretability and comprehensibility of certain items, particularly those assessing household, work, school, and sexual activities. These findings underscore the necessity of culturally adapting WHODAS 2.0 and imply that, in certain contexts, some items may necessitate revision or contextual explanation to preserve construct validity. For instance, the feasibility of item 4.5, “sexual activity,” was low, probably due to living conditions and the private nature of sex in Asian (53), Italian (185), and conservative cultures (82, 165), or to psychological factors in the case of breast cancer patients (167).
Similarly to cultural adaptation, feasibility issues arise with regard to specific populations, such as respondents with intellectual disabilities and schizophrenia. Chiu et al. (53) claim that people with intellectual disabilities have difficulty recognizing the meaning of dignity in their lives (item D6.3 of the 36-item version: “How much of a problem did you have living with dignity because of the attitudes and actions of others?”). With regard to people with schizophrenia, although the instrument exhibits suitable psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity (111, 149), respondents tend to misjudge items, reporting general disability values that are underestimated compared to the general population (81).
In the case of WHODAS-Child, Federici et al. (66) recommend increasing the number of studies to allow for a larger population of children with disabilities, which would make it possible to develop normative data for clinical use. Convergent and discriminant validity studies would better define the WHODAS-Child construct as a generic measure of disability based on the ICF-CY version (18) model and allow it to be correlated with other specific measures of child functioning and health. Finally, Federici et al. (66) recommend reconsidering the reintroduction of an item on sexual activity in WHODAS-Child. This item was present in the original adult version but was replaced by “getting along with his/her teachers” (item D4.5 of the 36-item patient form) in the same position and domain. A measure designed to assess the functioning of young people that does not also consider sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation) is not credible. For example, individuals with developmental disabilities may engage in socially inappropriate masturbation, which can put them or others at risk of harm (186). Moreover, these behaviors have such a strong impact on the social and family environment that they may restrict youth participation in everyday situations.
It should be noted that the 12- and 36-item versions for adults were used in studies with adolescent and young participants [e.g., (67–69, 99, 153, 155, 162)]. The results of the psychometric analysis confirm that both versions perform well with this age group. Furthermore, when the scores on the functioning of children with mental disabilities (obtained via the self-administered form) were compared with the values of their functioning as assessed by their parents (obtained by administering the proxy form), the children reported greater functional impairment than their parents did (99). The reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, though it’s possible that parents are more susceptible than their children to acquiescence bias and an idealistic distortion of their children’s functioning. The same discrepancy was found in Federici et al. (66), who compared the scores of treating physicians and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. The low correlations between parents’ and professionals’ opinions confirm the differences in their health perspectives. This reinforces the importance of considering both perspectives to gain a richer, more complex view of a child’s health and functioning.
As inherently subjective measurements, WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child cannot distinguish between actual individual functioning and perceived disability. This makes it unclear whether the observed activity limitations and participation restrictions reflect objective individual capacity or personal perception of one’s own functioning. As with any health measure, this reaffirms the need to combine subjective measures of individual functioning with those of health experts, such as treating physicians, which ensures that the internal view of disability when assessing healthcare or evaluating medical strategies is not misleading (187).
4.6 Limitations
This review has several limitations. First, the inclusion criterion requiring the selection of empirical studies on the psychometric properties of any version or form of WHODAS 2.0 from 2010 may have led to the exclusion of studies that used the old acronym, WHODAS II, to refer to the current WHODAS 2.0. However, only studies for which it was impossible to verify the version used were excluded. For example, Luciano et al. (188) was excluded because it was impossible to determine whether the version used (WHODAS II) coincided with the 2010 version (WHODAS 2.0). Park et al. (110), on the other hand, was included because, despite the inappropriate use of the acronym WHODAS II, it was clear that they were referring to the current version, WHODAS 2.0. The same applies to the 2010 date limit. Studies produced before 2010 that used the WHODAS 2.0 version, as published in the official release of the Manual in 2010, may have been excluded.
Second, due to differences in the study designs, sample sizes, populations investigated, and analysis methods of the included studies, a meta-analysis of the data was not possible, although an aggregation of the data from the included studies was conducted.
Third, the available correlation data were limited to associations between the total scores of WHODAS 2.0 and the total or subscale scores of external measures. Many included studies also reported correlations with individual WHODAS 2.0 domains; however, these were not considered in this study.
Finally, the summaries of values reported by each included study did not consider data that reported score ranges rather than point scores, and eliminating these data may have affected the calculation of the aggregate medians and means reported in Tables 1 and 3–5.
5 Conclusion
This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the psychometric properties of WHODAS 2.0 across diverse populations and research fields. The findings confirm the overall reliability and validity of both the 36- and 12-item versions. The results showed good behavior on the part of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version, albeit slightly lower than the psychometric profiles described in the Manual (1). The tool showed particularly strong measurement characteristics in populations with mental health conditions, neurological disorders, and rehabilitation needs, which together accounted for over two thirds of the reviewed studies. In these groups, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity were consistently high, thereby supporting the utility of WHODAS 2.0 in clinical and research contexts.
While the one general disability and six domains proposed in the Manual were largely supported, some studies suggested alternative factorial solutions, particularly for the 12-item version. The limited use and evaluation of WHODAS-Child underscore the need for further research to establish its psychometric robustness and clinical applicability. Cultural and contextual factors emerged as critical considerations, especially in non-Western and low-income settings, emphasizing the importance of making adaptations that are sensitive to culture. Overall, WHODAS 2.0 remains a valuable tool for assessing disability within the ICF framework; however, future studies should address its limitations in specific populations, such as children, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and further explore its use in youth assessments, as this will enhance its global applicability and clinical utility.
Finally, as the present review showed, WHODAS 2.0 is widely used in clinical and research settings across various countries; however, its relevance extends beyond clinical and research contexts to administrative ones as well. Several countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, and Sri Lanka, have integrated WHODAS 2.0 into their disability assessment protocols or health service guidelines, often aligning with the ICF framework. Italy was the first country to formally adopt WHODAS 2.0 through national legislation—Legislative Decree No. 62/2024 (189)—which grants it binding legal status in the evaluation of civil invalidity and disability. This marks the first time a patient self-assessment has been incorporated into the Italian national social security evaluation process, reaffirming the gradual shift towards a biopsychosocial and patient-driven approach to assessing a person’s functioning and disability.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.
Author contributions
SF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ER: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all colleagues who contributed to data collection and methodological discussions on the PRISMA-COSMIN framework. In accordance with the PRISMA-COSMIN 2024 guideline, all extracted psychometric data from the 143 included studies are provided in Supplementary Table S2. The dataset is permanently accessible at https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19770.66244 and includes all variables used for the aggregated and descriptive analyses reported in this review.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1737452/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, and Rehm J. Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva, CH: World Health Organization (2010).
2. Thompson JR, Bryant B, Campbell EM, Craig EPM, Hughes C, Rotholz DA, et al. Supports Intensity Scale Users Manual. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation (2004).
3. Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore PC, and Risi S. Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule: Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services (2006).
4. Luciano JV and Federici S. World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. In: Wenzel A, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA (2017). p. 3739–40.
5. APA (American Psychiatric Association). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: APA (1994).
6. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, and Balla DA. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service (2005).
7. WHO (World Health Organization). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, CH: WHO (2001).
8. Federici S and Meloni F. WHODAS II: Disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. In: Stone J and Blouin M, editors. International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange (CIRRIE, Buffalo, NY (2010). p. 1–22.
9. Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, and Luciano JV. World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. (2017) 39:2347–80. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177
10. WHO (World Health Organization), World Bank. World Report on Disability. Geneva, CH: WHO (2011).
11. Murray CJL and Chen LC. Understanding morbidity change. PDR. (1992) 18:481–503. doi: 10.2307/1973655
12. WHO (World Health Organization). WHO Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO/DAS): With a guide to its use. Geneva, CH: WHO (1988).
13. WHO (World Health Organization). WHODAS-II – Disability Assessment Schedule Training Manual: A guide to administration. Geneva, CH: WHO (2004).
14. APA (American Psychiatric Association). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Washington, DC: APA (2013).
15. WHO (World Health Organization). WHODAS 2.0 Scoring Excel Sheet. Geneva, CH: WHO (2025). Available online at: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule. (Accessed April 30 2025).
16. Castro S, Leite CF, Coenen M, and Buchalla CM. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2 (WHODAS 2.0): remarks on the need to revise the WHODAS. Cad Saude Publica. (2019) 35:e00000519. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00000519
17. de Camargo OK. WHODAS 2.0. Newsletter on the WHO-FIC (Geneva, CH: World Health Organization), Vol. 16. (2018). pp. 2–3.
18. WHO (World Health Organization). ICF-CY: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth Version. Geneva, CH: WHO (2007).
19. Canino GJ, Fisher PW, Alegria M, and Bird HR. Assessing child impairment in functioning in different contexts: implications for use of services and the classification of psychiatric disorders. OJMP. (2013) 2:29–34. doi: 10.4236/ojmp.2013.21006
20. Scorza P, Stevenson A, Canino G, Mushashi C, Kanyanganzi F, Munyanah M, et al. Validation of the “World health organization disability assessment schedule for children, WHODAS-child” in Rwanda. PloS One. (2013) 8:e57725. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057725
21. Saltychev M, Katajapuu N, Bärlund E, and Laimi K. Psychometric properties of 12-item self-administered World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) among general population and people with non-acute physical causes of disability - systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. (2021) 43:789–94. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1643416
22. Elsman EBM, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Beaton D, Gagnier JJ, Tricco AC, et al. Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. Qual Life Res. (2024) 33:2029–46. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03634-y
23. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. (2021) 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160
24. Hayes AF and Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. (2007) 1:77–89. doi: 10.1080/19312450709336664
25. Mayrink J, Souza RT, Silveira C, Guida JP, Costa ML, Parpinelli MA, et al. Reference ranges of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) score and diagnostic validity of its 12-item version in identifying altered functioning in healthy postpartum women. IJGO. (2018) 141:48–54. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12466
26. Tarvonen-Schröder S and Koivisto M. Predicting institutionalization after Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation using the 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. J Rehabil Med. (2023) 55:jrm6531. doi: 10.2340/jrm.v55.6531
27. Abdin E, Seet V, Jeyagurunathan A, Tan SC, Mok YM, Verma S, et al. Validation of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in individuals with schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and diabetes in Singapore. PloS One. (2023) 18:e0294908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294908
28. Akhtar A, Cuijpers P, Morina N, Sijbrandij M, and Bryant R. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the 12-item Arabic World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a screening tool for Syrian refugees. BJPsych Open. (2021) 7:e190. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2021.1017
29. Alencar CH, Boigny RN, Nogueira PSF, de Castro SS, and de Sousa Almondes JG. 2022Validation of the Brazilian version of the WHODAS 2.0 for people affected by leprosy. Lepr Rev. (2021) 92:47–58. doi: 10.47276/lr.92.1.47
30. Aşkın A, Atar E, Tosun A, Demirdal Ü, and Koca Ö. Activities and participation after stroke: validity and reliability of the Turkish version of IMPACT-S questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil. (2020) 42:1912–7. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1542038
31. Aslan Kunt D and Dereboy F. Validity and reliability of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in Turkish psychiatry patients and healthy controls. Turk Psikiyatr Derg. (2018) 29:147–55. doi: 10.5080/u20481
32. Axelsson E, Lindsäter E, Ljótsson B, Andersson E, and Hedman-Lagerlöf E. The 12-item self-report world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 administered via the internet to individuals with anxiety and stress disorders: A psychometric investigation based on data from two clinical trials. JMIR Ment Health. (2017) 4:e58. doi: 10.2196/mental.7497
33. Babu H, Sriraman S, Karthikbabu S, Sophia P, and Kumar SNS. Factors influencing social and community participation of people with spinal cord injury in Karnataka, India. Indian J Community Med. (2024) 49:52–5. doi: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_421_22
34. Badu E, Mitchell R, O’Brien AP, Osei A, and Rubin M. Measuring Disability in Consumers of mental health services – psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in Ghana. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2021) 30:1274–88. doi: 10.1111/inm.12911
35. Barbosa KSS, Castro S, Leite CF, Nacci FR, and Accioly MF. Validação da versão brasileira do World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 em indivíduos HIV/AIDS. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. (2020) 25:837–44. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020253.18992018
36. Bärlund ET, Katajapuu NK, Paltamaa JP, and Saltychev MM. Correlation between Oswestry disability index and 12-item self-administered version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in patients with chronic low back pain. Int J Rehabil Res. (2021) 44:170–2. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000465
37. Barreto MCA, Moraleida FRJ, Graminha CV, Leite CF, Castro SS, and Nunes ACL. Functioning in the fibromyalgia syndrome: validity and reliability of the WHODAS 2.0. Adv Rheumatol. (2021) 61:58. doi: 10.1186/s42358-021-00216-1
38. Basavarajappa C, Kumar KS, Suresh VC, Kumar CN, Ravishankar V, Vanamoorthy U, et al. What score in WHODAS 2.0 12-item interviewer version corresponds to 40% Psychiatric disability? A comparative study against IDEAS. J Psychosoc Rehabil Ment Health. (2016) 3:21–6. doi: 10.1007/s40737-016-0053-x
39. Begum TF, Morse GS, Buchwald D, and Carpenter DO. Assessing the psychometric properties of the WHO-DAS 2.0 in an American Indian community. J Indig Res. (2022) 9:Article 12.
40. Bejer A, Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Spalek R, de Sire A, et al. Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res. (2021) 30:2415–27. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02806-4
41. Borges KA, de Oliveira Chagas LM, Andrade LF, and de Castro SS. Validade e confiabilidade do World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) para pessoas com obesidade mórbida. Med (Brazil). (2017) 50:41–2. doi: 10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v30i2p94-101
42. Brasil AM and Correr CJ. Validation of the Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 in patients with mental disorders: should the 12-item scale be an alternative to 36-item scale in DSM-5? Neuropsychiatry. (2018) 8:719–26. doi: 10.4172/Neuropsychiatry.1000397
43. Brinck EA, Fry HE, and Smedema SM. Psychometric validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0—Twelve-item version in a heterogeneous group of employed people with disabilities. JARC. (2020) 51:222–37. doi: 10.1891/JARC-D-20-00006
44. Brito GA, Martins NS, Frota IPR, Moreira MA, and Nascimento S. Validation of the Brazilian version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in women with chronic pelvic pain. BrJP. (2023) 6:346–52. doi: 10.5935/2595-0118.20230091-en
45. Carlozzi NE, Kratz AL, Downing NR, Goodnight S, Miner JA, Migliore N, et al. Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD). Qual Life Res. (2015) 24:1963–71. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0930-x
46. Carvalho da Silva MM, Sakumotu Lozano R, Duarte Pereira N, Tays Marrara Marmorato K, Maria De Souza N, José Barbosa Zorrer Franco F, et al. Correlation between World Health Disability Assessment Schedule (Whodas) 2.0 and six minutes walk test. Eur Respir J. (2019) 54:PA1215. doi: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA1215
47. Chang K-F, Chang K-H, Chi W-C, Huang S-W, Yen C-F, Liao H-F, et al. Influence of visual impairment and hearing impairment on functional dependence status among people in Taiwan: An evaluation using the WHODAS 2.0 score. J Chin Med Assoc. (2017) 81:376–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.08.011
48. Chang K-H, Liao H-F, Yen C-F, Hwang A-W, Chi W-C, Escorpizo R, et al. Association between muscle power impairment and WHODAS 2.0 in older adults with physical disability in Taiwan. Disabil Rehabil. (2015) 37:712–20. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.940428
49. Chang K-H, Lin Y-N, Liao H-F, Yen C-F, Escorpizo R, Yen T-H, et al. Environmental effects on WHODAS 2.0 among patients with stroke with a focus on ICF category e120. Qual Life Res. (2014) 23:1823–31. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0624-9
50. Chen X, Iwanaga K, Wu J-R, Lee B, Chan F, Tansey TN, et al. Psychometric validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule in a sample of community dwelling adults with chronic health conditions and disabilities. JARC. (2021) 52:115–26. doi: 10.1891/JARC-D-20-00010
51. Cheung MKT, Hung ATF, Poon PKK, Fong DYT, Li LSW, Chow ESL, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Assessment Schedule II Chinese Traditional Version (WHODAS II CT) in persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses for Chinese population. Disabil Rehabil. (2015) 37:1902–7. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.989336
52. Chiu T-Y, Finger ME, Fellinghauer CS, Escorpizo R, Chi W-C, Liou T-H, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in adults with spinal cord injury in Taiwan: a psychometric study. Spinal Cord. (2019) 57:516–24. doi: 10.1038/s41393-018-0231-7
53. Chiu T-Y, Yen C-F, Chou C-H, Lin J-D, Hwang A-W, Liao H-F, et al. Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36 - item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: Validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil. (2014) 35:2812–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009
54. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Bejer A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, de Sire A, Spalek R, et al. Psychometric properties of the polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with low back pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7284. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197284
55. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Sozański B, Kupczyk M, Leszczak J, Kwolek A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, et al. Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 in patients with Huntington’s disease. J Clin Med. (2021) 10:1053. doi: 10.3390/jcm10051053
56. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, and Sozański B. Validation of the Polish version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in an elderly (60–70-year-old) population. JOSE. (2017) 24:386–94. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1316596
57. da Silva A, Oliveira L, Santos HD, Pereira G, and Silva S. Teleassessment of disability and health after stroke: Validation and reliability of the applicability of WHODAS 2.0 by video call. J Neurol Sci. (2023) 455:195. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2023.122151
58. Daza JF, Cuthbertson BH, Myles PS, Shulman MA, Wijeysundera DN, and Investigators tM-MS. Measurement properties of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for evaluating functional status after inpatient surgery. Br J Surg. (2022) 109:968–76. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac263
59. de Arruda GT, de Melo Mantovan SG, Da Roza T, Silva B, Tonon da Luz SC, and Avila MA. WHODAS measurement properties for women with dysmenorrhea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2023) 21:55. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02140-y
60. de Castro SS, Leite CF, Nacci FR, Barbosa KSS, and Accioly MF. Validação da versão brasileira do World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule em indivíduos com diabetes mellitus. Fisioter Pesqui. (2019) 26:413–8. doi: 10.1590/1809-2950/18033926042019
61. de Oliveira ACS, Zacarias LC, de Souza CCC, Bezerra J, Viana-Junior AB, Sobreira-Neto MA, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Brazilian version of the instrument World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for individuals with obstructive sleep apnoea. Heart Lung. (2024) 67:183–90. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.05.010
62. Denu ZA, Yassin MO, Bisetegn TA, Biks GA, and Gelaye KA. The 12 items Amharic version WHODAS-2 showed cultural adaptation and used to measure disability among road traffic trauma victims in Ethiopia. BMC Psychol. (2021) 9:1. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00492-4
63. Díaz-Castro L, Arroyo-Belmonte M, Suárez-Brito P, Márquez-Caraveo ME, and Garcia-Andrade C. Validation of the World Health Organization’s Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for children with mental disorders in specialized health-care services. Front Psychiatry. (2024) 15:1415133. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1415133
64. Downing NR, Kim J-I, Williams JK, Long JD, Mills JA, and Paulsen JS. WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease: measures of functioning in neuropsychiatric disease. Eur J Hum Genet. (2014) 22:958–63. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.275
65. Duca L, Roman NA, Miron A, Teodorescu A, Dima L, and Ifteni P. WHODAS assessment feasibility and mental health impact on functional disability in systemic lupus erythematosus. Healthcare. (2022) 10:1053. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10061053
66. Federici S, Balboni G, Buracchi A, Barbanera F, and Pierini A. WHODAS-child: psychometric properties of the WHODAS 2.0 for children and youth among Italian children with autism spectrum disorder. Disabil Rehabil. (2023) 45:1713–9. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2071481
67. Ferro MA, Basque D, Elgie M, and Dol M. Agreement of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in parents and youth with physical illness living in Canada. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 45:3125–34. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2120095
68. Ferro MA, Dol M, Basque D, and Elgie M. Validating the 12-item proxy-administered World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in young children with chronic physical illness in Canada. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 45:3135–42. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2118868
69. Ferro MA, Elgie M, Dol M, and Basque D. Measurement invariance of the 12-item self-administered World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 across early and late adolescents in Canada. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 45:3118–24. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2118867
70. Fujiwara A, Ida M, Kimoto K, Watanabe K, and Kawaguchi M. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in patients attending the pain clinic. JA. (2020) 35:81–5. doi: 10.1007/s00540-020-02871-y
71. Gaskin CJ, Lambert SD, Bowe SJ, and Orellana L. Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: implications for the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2017) 17:40. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0309-5
72. Gspandl S, Peirson RP, Nahhas RW, Skale TG, and Lehrer DS. Comparing global assessment of functioning (GAF) and world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. (2017) 259:251–3. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.033
73. Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino Ó, Rojo E, Vieta E, Cuesta MJ, et al. Disability in bipolar I disorder: the 36-item world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. J Affect Disord. (2015) 174:353–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.028
74. Habtamu K, Alem A, Medhin G, Fekadu A, Dewey M, Prince M, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in people with severe mental disorders in rural Ethiopia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2017) 15:64. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0647-3
75. Hernández-Orduña O, Robles-García R, Martínez-López N, Muñoz-Toledo C, González-Salas A, Cabello M, et al. WHODAS and the evaluation of disability among people with mental disorders with and without psychotic symptoms. Salud Ment. (2017) 40:209–18. doi: 10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2017.027
76. Herrold AA, Kletzel SL, Mallinson T, Pape TLB, Weaver JA, Guernon A, et al. Psychometric measurement properties of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) evaluated among veterans with mild traumatic brain injury and behavioral health conditions. Disabil Rehabil. (2021) 43:1313–22. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1660914
77. Higgins AM, Serpa Neto A, Bailey M, Barrett J, Bellomo R, Cooper DJ, et al. The psychometric properties and minimal clinically important difference for disability assessment using WHODAS 2.0 in critically ill patients. Crit Care Resusc. (2021) 23:103–12. doi: 10.51893/2021.1.oa10
78. Hilfi L, Atik N, Raksanagara AS, Sunjaya DK, Paramita SA, Yamazaki C, et al. Rasch model analysis of the Indonesian version of world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Kitakanto Med J. (2021) 71:275–88. doi: 10.2974/kmj.71.275
79. Ho EC. Utility of WHODAS 2.0 (Quality of life assessment) in detecting changes in quality of life in hearing impairment. J Laryngol Otol. (2016) 130:S176–7. doi: 10.1017/S0022215116005600
80. Hoehne A, Giguere CE, Herba CM, and Labelle R. Assessing functioning across common mental disorders in psychiatric emergency patients: results from the WHODAS-2. Can J Psychiatry. (2021) 66:1085–93. doi: 10.1177/0706743720981200
81. Holmberg C, Gremyr A, Torgerson J, and Mehlig K. Clinical validity of the 12-item WHODAS-2.0 in a naturalistic sample of outpatients with psychotic disorders. BMC Psychiatry. (2021) 21:147. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03101-9
82. Hu L, Zang Y-L, and Li N. The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 in adolescents in China. J Clin Nurs. (2012) 21:2438–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04126.x
83. Ida M, Naito Y, Tanaka Y, Matsunari Y, Inoue S, and Kawaguchi M. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-2 in preoperative patients. JA. (2017) 31:539–44. doi: 10.1007/s00540-017-2349-8
84. Igwesi-Chidobe CN, Kitchen S, Sorinola IO, and Godfrey EL. World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0): development and validation of the Nigerian Igbo version in patients with chronic low back pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord. (2020) 21:755. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03763-8
85. Irfan M, Sethi MR, Khan I, Awan NR, Naz F, Saleem U, et al. Translation and validation in pashto (3): World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. JPMI. (2017) 31:400–4.
86. Katajapuu N, Heinonen A, and Saltychev M. Minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Clin Rehabil. (2020) 34:1506–11. doi: 10.1177/0269215520942573
87. Katajapuu N, Laimi K, Heinonen A, and Saltychev M. Gender-related differences in psychometric properties of WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Int J Rehabil Res. (2019) 42:316–21. doi: 10.1097/mrr.0000000000000365
88. Kilkki M, Stolt M, Rannikko S, Pasanen M, and Tarvonen-Schroder S. Patient- and proxy-perceptions on functioning after stroke rehabilitation using the 12-item WHODAS 2.0: a longitudinal cohort study. Disabil Rehabil. (2024) 46:783–92. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2023.2173813
89. Kirchberger I, Braitmayer K, Coenen M, Oberhauser C, and Meisinger C. Feasibility and psychometric properties of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in a population-based sample of patients with myocardial infarction from the MONICA/KORA myocardial infarction registry. Popul Health Metr. (2014) 12:27. doi: 10.1186/s12963-014-0027-8
90. Koumpouros Y, Papageorgiou E, Sakellari E, Prapas X, Perifanou D, and Lagiou A. Adaptation and psychometric properties evaluation of the Greek version of WHODAS 2.0. Pilot application in Greek elderly population. HSOR. (2018) 18:63–74. doi: 10.1007/s10742-017-0176-x
91. Lee HH, Shin EK, Shin HI, and Yang EJ. Is WHODAS 2.0 useful for colorectal cancer survivors? Ann Rehabil Med. (2017) 41:667–76. doi: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.4.667
92. Lozano O, Mancheno JJ, Cupani M, Delgado Rico E, Moraleda E, Caceres-Pachon P, et al. Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory produced differences on estimation of Reliable Clinical Index in WHODAS 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. (2018) 103:51–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.07.002
93. MacLeod MA, Tremblay PF, Graham K, Bernards S, Rehm J, and Wells S. Psychometric properties and a latent class analysis of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in a pooled dataset of community samples. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (2016) 25:243–54. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1523
94. Malaju MT. A structural equation modelling of the direct and indirect factors associated with functional status over time as measured by WHODAS-32 items among postpartum women in Northwest Ethiopia. APH. (2023) 81:41. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01055-w
95. Manzoor A, Hameed A, and Munir H. Ecological validation of WHODAS 2.0 for disability assessment in Pakistan. GESR. (2022) 7:340–9. doi: 10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).32
96. Marom BS, Carel RS, Sharabi M, and Ratzon NZ. Cross-cultural adaptation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for Hebrew-speaking subjects with and without hand injury. Disabil Rehabil. (2017) 39:1155–61. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1189606
97. Martínez-Taboas A, Medina-Sustache E, González-Díaz DY, Aparicio ACP, Viejo AMG, García JDJ, et al. El WHODAS 2.0 en Puerto Rico: Psicometría y su relación con la escala de evaluación de actividad global con pacientes psiquiátricos. Salud Soc. (2017) 8:82–93. doi: 10.22199/S07187475.2017.0001.00006
98. Marx BP, Wolf EJ, Cornette MM, Schnurr PP, Rosen MI, Friedman MJ, et al. Using the WHODAS 2.0 to assess functioning among veterans seeking compensation for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatr Serv. (2015) 66:1312–7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400400
99. McDonald EJ, Bedard C, Kirkpatrick SI, Perlman CM, and Ferro MA. Psychometric properties and informant agreement of the WHODAS 2.0 in youth with mental disorder. JCACAP. (2023) 32:38–49.
100. Mendes LMR, Fiamengui LMSP, and Bevilaqua-Grossi D. Validation of the Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 for individuals with temporomandibular disorders. Fisioter Pesqui. (2021) 28:408–15. doi: 10.1590/1809-2950/20025428042021
101. Midhage R, Hermansson L, Söderberg P, Tungström S, Nordenskjöld A, Svanborg C, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations – using classical test theory. Nord J Psychiatry. (2021) 75:494–501. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2021.1897162
102. Moen VP, Drageset J, Eide GE, Klokkerud M, and Gjesdal S. Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway. Qual Life Res. (2017) 26:505–14. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1384-5
103. Moreira A, Alvarelhão J, Silva AG, Costa R, and Queirós A. Tradução e validação para português do WHODAS 2.0 - 12 itens em pessoas com 55 ou mais anos. PJPH. (2015) 33:179–82. doi: 10.1016/j.rpsp.2015.06.003
104. Moura A, Rocha R, Araujo A, Castro S, Moreira MA, and Nascimento S. Reliability and validity of the Brazilian version of the world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) questionnaire for women with urinary incontinence. Disabil Rehabil. (2024) 46:6455–60. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2024.2327479
105. Nielsen LM, Oestergaard LG, Kirkegaard H, and Maribo T. Construct validity and clinical utility of world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 in older patients discharged from emergency departments. Front Rehabil Sci. (2021) 2:710137. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2021.710137
106. Norouzi H, Roohi S, Shahhosseini M, and Nouri Ghasemabady R. Psychometric properties of the world health organization disability assessment scale 2.0 among Iranian cancer patients. MEJC. (2020) 11:333–42. doi: 10.30476/MEJC.2019.81280.0
107. Ovando AC, Dall’Agnol C, Merlyn Luiz J, Andrade Momo R, and De Castro SS. The Brazilian version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is reliable and valid for chronic stroke survivors. Top Stroke Rehabil. (2024) 31:211–20. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2023.2207293
108. Paniagua G. Validación del cuestionario para la evaluación de la discapacidad de la Organización Mundial de la Salud en población clínica del área metropolitana de San Salvador y Santa Ana. Crea Ciencia. (2017) 11:53–9. doi: 10.5377/creaciencia.v11i1-2.6040
109. Papadopoulou M, Stasi S, Bakalidou D, Papageorgiou E, Tsokani A, Bratsi T, et al. Psychometric properties of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in adult patients with motor disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil. (2020) 32:801–19. doi: 10.1007/s10882-019-09721-0
110. Park SH, Demetriou EA, Pepper KL, Song YJC, Thomas EE, Hickie IB, et al. Validation of the 36-item and 12-item self-report World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. (2019) 12:1101–11. doi: 10.1002/aur.2115
111. Paul FA and Ali A. Disability assessment in the persons with schizophrenia: Inter-rater agreement and correlation between self-, proxy-, and interviewer-rated versions of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Arch Ment Health. (2023) 24:102–8. doi: 10.4103/amh.amh_142_22
112. Paul FA and Bora D. Agreement in disability between world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (36 item version) and Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale among the person with severe mental illness. Malays J Psychiatry. (2022) 31:78–83. doi: 10.4103/mjp.mjp_18_22
113. Pavlova I, Muzyka O, and Tymruk-Skoropad K. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0: psychometric properties and validation of the Ukrainian version in a sample of cadets of the Armed Forces. Adv Rehab. (2022) 36:39–48. doi: 10.5114/areh.2022.116702
114. Prodinger B, Stucki G, Coenen M, and Tennant A. The measurement of functioning using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: comparing qualifier ratings with existing health status instruments. Disabil Rehabil. (2019) 41:541–8. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1381186
115. Rajeziesfahani S, Federici S, Bacci S, Meloni F, Bartolucci F, Zahiroddin A, et al. Validity of the 36-item Persian (Farsi) version of the world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0. Int J Ment Health. (2019) 48:14–39. doi: 10.1080/00207411.2019.1568172
116. Ramklint M, Söderberg P, Tungström S, Nordenskjöld A, and Hermansson L. Validity of the self-rated 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 as a measure of functioning in Swedish psychiatric outpatients. Nord J Psychiatry. (2023) 77:276–81. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2022.2097738
117. Rijanti KA, Subadi I, and Kurniawati PM. Validity and reliability of WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) type 12 questions Indonesian version on back pain. Folia Med Indones. (2021) 57:220–5. doi: 10.20473/fmi.v57i3.13580
118. Risal A, Kunwar D, Karki E, Adhikari SP, Bimali I, Shrestha B, et al. Adapting world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 for Nepal. BMC Psychol. (2021) 9:45. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00550-5
119. Rocha V, Marques A, Pinto M, Sousa L, and Figueiredo D. People with dementia in long-term care facilities: an exploratory study of their activities and participation. Disabil Rehabil. (2013) 35:1501–8. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.742677
120. Salehi R, Negahban H, Khiavi FF, Saboor S, Majdinasab N, and Shakhi K. Validity and reliability of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 36-item Persian version for persons with multiple sclerosis. KJFM. (2020) 41:195–201. doi: 10.4082/kjfm.18.0155
121. Saltychev M, Bärlund E, and Laimi K. Correlation between the pain numeric rating scale and the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. (2018) 41:87–91. doi: 10.1097/mrr.0000000000000262
122. Saltychev M, Bärlund E, Mattie R, McCormick Z, Paltamaa J, and Laimi K. A study of the psychometric properties of 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in a large population of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Clin Rehabil. (2017) 31:262–72. doi: 10.1177/0269215516631385
123. Saltychev M, Mattie R, McCormick Z, and Laimi K. Confirmatory factor analysis of 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions. Clin Rehabil. (2017) 31:702–9. doi: 10.1177/0269215516652930
124. Schiavolin S, Ferroli P, Acerbi F, Brock S, Broggi M, Cusin A, et al. Disability in Italian neurosurgical patients: validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. Int J Rehabil Res. (2014) 37:267–70. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000064
125. Schneider M, Baron E, Davies T, Bass J, and Lund C. Making assessment locally relevant: measuring functioning for maternal depression in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2015) 50:797–806. doi: 10.1007/s00127-014-1003-0
126. Sedano-Capdevila A, Barrigón ML, Delgado-Gomez D, Barahona I, Aroca F, Peñuelas-Calvo I, et al. WHODAS 2.0 as a measure of severity of illness: results of a FLDA analysis. CMMM. (2018) 2018:7353624. doi: 10.1155/2018/7353624
127. Serrano-Dueñas M, Serrano M, Mafla D, and Martínez-Martín P. Evaluation of the metric properties of the WHODAS 2.0, WHODAS-S, and RADS in the assessment of disability in Parkinsonian patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. (2020) 194:105872. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105872
128. Sexton MB, Davis MT, Lusk RK, Lyubkin M, and Chermack ST. A factor analytic evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among veterans presenting to a generalist mental health clinic. Psychiatry Res. (2019) 272:638–42. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.008
129. Shahedifar N, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Farahbakhsh M, and Bazargan-Hejazi S. Psychometric properties of the 12-item WHODAS applied through phone survey: an experience in PERSIAN Traffic Cohort. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2022) 20:106. doi: 10.1186/s12955-022-02013-w
130. Shahedifar N, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Golestani M, Asghari Jaafarabadi M, Pourasghar F, and Bazargan-Hejazi S. Psychometric properties of full WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire for application through phone surveys: an experience in PERSIAN traffic cohort. Discov Public Health. (2025) 22:171. doi: 10.1186/s12982-025-00536-3
131. Shulman MA, Myles PS, Chan MT, McIlroy DR, Wallace S, and Ponsford J. Measurement of disability-free survival after surgery. Anesthesiology. (2015) 122:524–36. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000586
132. Silva AG, Cerqueira M, Raquel Santos A, Ferreira C, Alvarelhao J, and Queiros A. Inter-rater reliability, standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 and four performance tests in institutionalized ambulatory older adults. Disabil Rehabil. (2019) 41:366–73. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1393112
133. Silva C, Coleta I, Silva AG, Amaro A, Alvarelhao J, Queiros A, et al. Adaptation and validation of WHODAS 2.0 in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Rev Saude Publica. (2013) 47:752–8. doi: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047004374
134. Silva TFCE, Medeiros P, Leite CF, Castro SS, Nunes ACL, and Jesus-Moraleida FR. Is it time to rethink disability assessment in low back pain? Reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Brazilian WHODAS 2.0 for chronic low back pain. Physiother Res Int. (2023) 28:e2025. doi: 10.1002/pri.2025
135. Silveira C, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC, Andreucci CB, Angelini CR, Ferreira EC, et al. Validação da versão de 36 itens do WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) para a avaliação de incapacidade e funcionalidade da mulher associada à morbidade materna. RBGO. (2017) 39:44–52. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1598599
136. Silveira C, Souza RT, Costa ML, Parpinelli MA, Pacagnella RC, Ferreira EC, et al. Validation of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) 12-item tool against the 36-item version for measuring functioning and disability associated with pregnancy and history of severe maternal morbidity. IJGO. (2018) 141:39–47. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12465
137. Silveira LS, Castro SS, Leite CF, Oliveira NML, Salomão AE, and Pereira K. Validade e confiabilidade da versão brasileira do World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule em pessoas com cegueira. Fisioter Pesqui. (2019) 26:22–30. doi: 10.1590/1809-2950/17013126012019
138. Smedema SM, Ruiz D, and Mohr MJ. Psychometric validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0—Twelve-item version in persons with spinal cord injuries. Rehab Res Policy Educ. (2017) 31:7–20. doi: 10.1891/2168-6653.31.1.7
139. Smedema SM, Yaghmaian RA, Ruiz D, Muller V, Emre U, and Fong C. Psychometric validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 - 12-item version in persons with fibromyalgia syndrome. J Rehabil. (2016) 82:28–35.
140. Snell DL, Iverson GL, Panenka W, and Silverberg ND. Preliminary validation of the WHODAS 2.0 for mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. (2017) 34:3256–61. doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5234
141. Snell DL, Siegert RJ, and Silverberg ND. Rasch analysis of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in a mild traumatic brain injury sample. Brain Inj. (2020) 34:610–8. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2020.1729417
142. Sousa A, Silva M, Barreto MCA, Nunes BP, Coutinho BD, and Castro S. Propriedades psicométricas do WHODAS para uso em pessoas com chikungunya no Brasil. Fisioter Pesqui. (2019) 26:419–26. doi: 10.1590/1809-2950/18036226042019
143. Sousa C, Amante MJ, and Fonseca S. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument WHODAS 2.0 Child and Youth. In: Desouzart G, editor. International Congress of Health and Well-being Intervention: ICHWBI 2019. University Campus of Viseu of the Piaget Institute, Portugal (2019). p. 104–5.
144. Subramaniam M, Abdin E, Vaingankar JA, Sagayadevan V, Shahwan S, Picco L, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among older adults in an Asian country. Singapore Med J. (2020) 61:246–53. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2019049
145. Sulyvan Castro S, Ferreira Leite C, Baldin JE, and FalAngola Accioly M. Validation of the Brazilian version of WHODAS 2.0 in patients on hemodialysis therapy. Fisioter Mov. (2018) 31:1–13. doi: 10.1590/1980-5918.031.AO30
146. Svanborg C, Amer A, Nordenskjöld A, Ramklint M, Söderberg P, Tungström S, et al. Evidence for validity of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in patients with mental disorders: a multi-centre cross-sectional study using Rasch analysis. J Patient Rep Outcomes. (2022) 6:45. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00449-8
147. Tarvonen-Schröder S and Koivisto M. World health organization disability assessment schedule versus functional independence measure in traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med. (2023) 55:jrm16274. doi: 10.2340/jrm.v55.16274
148. Tavares PA, Oliveira CDL, Ferreira AM, Baldoni NR, Quintino ND, Haikal DSA, et al. Evaluation of the properties of WHODAS-12 measurements in individuals with Chagas disease in Brazil. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. (2023) 65:e30. doi: 10.1590/S1678-9946202365030
149. Thai H, Robertson C, Friberg L, Hatko A, Ielo D, and Attwood DG. WHODAS 2.0: Associations of functional disability with sex, age, and length of care in outpatients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Psychiatry Res. (2022) 313:114583. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114583
150. Theotokatos G, Escorpizo R, Angelopoulos TJ, Chrysagis NK, Bickenbach J, Venieri A, et al. Psychometric properties of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0), Greek version: A cross-sectional study on applicants of welfare benefits. Cureus. (2023) 15:e48588. doi: 10.7759/cureus.48588
151. Thomas C, Narahari SR, Bose KS, Vivekananda K, Nwe S, West DP, et al. Comparison of three quality of life instruments in lymphatic filariasis: DLQI, WHODAS 2.0, and LFSQQ. PloS Negl Trop Dis. (2014) 8:e2716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002716
152. Thomas CC, Rathod SD, De Silva MJ, Weiss HA, and Patel V. The 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II as an outcome measure for treatment of common mental disorders. GMH. (2016) 3:e14. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2016.7
153. Tompke BK, Tang J, Oltean II, Buchan MC, Reaume SV, and Ferro MA. Measurement invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 across youth with and without physical or mental conditions. Assessment. (2020) 27:1490–501. doi: 10.1177/1073191118816435
154. Tymruk-Skoropad K, Muzyka O, and Pavlova I. Measuring health and disability of Ukrainian cadets – translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the WHODAS 2.0. Physiother Quat. (2022) 31:49–56. doi: 10.5114/pq.2023.116343
155. Umucu E, Schlegelmilch A, Brinck E, Hartman E, Iwanaga K, Estala V, et al. Psychometric validation of a measure assessing functional limitations of students with disabilities: an adaptation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Rehabil Couns Bull. (2020) 65:70–8. doi: 10.1177/0034355220962176
156. Vaganian L, Bussmann S, Boecker M, Kusch M, Labouvie H, Gerlach AL, et al. An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Qual Life Res. (2021) 30:2929–38. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02872-8
157. Vincent C, Gagné J-P, Leroux T, Clothier A, Larivière M, Dumont FS, et al. French-Canadian translation and validation of four questionnaires assessing hearing impairment and handicap. Int J Audiol. (2017) 56:248–59. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1263398
158. Wada R, Fujiwara M, Yamada Y, Nakaya N, Fujimori M, So R, et al. Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the 12-item self-administered world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in patients with schizophrenia. Acta Med Okayama. (2021) 75:315–22. doi: 10.18926/amo/62226
159. Wang L-E, Zhou J, and Jin H. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in mental disability assessment. Chin Ment Health J. (2013) 27:121–5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2013.02.008
160. Wawrzyniak KM, Finkelman M, Schatman ME, Kulich RJ, Weed VF, Myrta E, et al. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in a chronic pain population being considered for chronic opioid therapy. J Pain Res. (2019) 12:1855–62. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S207870
161. Williams GL, de Beurs E, Spinhoven P, Flens G, and Paap MCS. Support for the higher-order factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0 self-report version in a Dutch outpatient psychiatric setting. Qual Life Res. (2021) 30:2939–49. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02880-8
162. Wu J-R, Kesselmayer RF, Smedema SM, Chen X, Lee B, Rumrill S, et al. Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in people with multiple sclerosis. J Vocat Rehab. (2020) 52:185–94. doi: 10.3233/JVR-191071
163. Young CA, Rog DJ, Sharrack B, Constantinescu C, Kalra S, Harrower T, et al. Measuring disability in multiple sclerosis: the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res. (2023) 32:3235–46. doi: 10.1007/s11136-023-03470-6
164. Younus MI, Wang D-M, Yu F-f, Fang H, and Guo X. Reliability and validity of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin–Beck disease. Rheumatol Int. (2017) 37:1567–73. doi: 10.1007/s00296-017-3723-4
165. Yuliana S, Muslih M, Sim J, Vidyanti AN, Brahmadhi A, and Tsai HT. Development and validation of the World Health Organization disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) Indonesian version in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 44:4459–66. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1900413
166. Zacarias LC, Câmara K, Alves BM, Morano MTAP, Viana CMS, Mont’Alverne DGB, et al. Validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for individuals with COPD. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 44:5663–8. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1948117
167. Zhao HP, Liu Y, Li HL, Ma L, Zhang YJ, and Wang J. Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Qual Life Res. (2013) 22:897–906. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0212-9
168. Zhou W, Liu Q, Yu Y, Xiao S, Chen L, Khoshnood K, et al. Proxy reliability of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule II among adult patients with mental disorders. Qual Life Res. (2020) 29:2219–29. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02474-w
169. Wikipedia contributors. Cohort study. In: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (2025). Available online at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cohort_study&oldid=1288339106 (San Francisco, CA: Wikimedia Foundation). (Accessed April 30, 2025).
170. Ware JE Jr. and Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. (1992) 30:473–83. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
171. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, and O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Qual Life Res. (2004) 13:299–310. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00
172. Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, and Cohen J. The global assessment scale: A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. (1976) 33:766–71. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1976.01770060086012
173. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. (2011) 20:1727–36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
174. Bland JM and Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. (1997) 314:572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
175. Streiner DL, Norman GR, and Cairney J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (2015).
176. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. (2018) 18:91–3. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
177. Koyano H. Measurement of competence in the elderly living at home: Development of an index of competence. JSPH. (1987) 34:109–14.
178. Zigmond AS and Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. (1983) 67:361–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
179. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, and Raj BA. The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. (1996) 11:89–95. doi: 10.1097/00004850-199606003-00015
180. Ravens-Sieberer U, Angela G, Luis R, Michael E, Jeanet B, Wolfgang D, et al. KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. (2005) 5:353–64. doi: 10.1586/14737167.5.3.353
181. Farrar JT, Young JPJ, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, and Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. (2001) 94:149–58. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9
182. Fairbank JCT and Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine. (2000) 25:2940–53. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
183. Ware JE, Kosinski M, and Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. (1996) 34:220–33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
184. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, and Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. (1987) 1:6–18.
185. Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, Lauriola M, and Olivetti Belardinelli M. World health organization disability assessment schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil. (2009) 31:553–64. doi: 10.1080/09638280802240498
186. Federici S, Mosconi E, Rossler ME, and Mossuto V. Expressive existential psychoeducational intervention treatment for maladaptive sexual behavior in a boy with trisomy 21 syndrome. Arch Sex Behav. (2025) 54:2363–72. doi: 10.1007/s10508-025-03186-3
187. Sen A. Health: perception versus observation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). (2002) 324:860–1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.860
188. Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos J, Aguado J, Fernandez A, Serrano-Blanco A, Roca M, et al. The 12–item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): a nonparametric item response analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2010) 10:1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-45
189. Repubblica Italiana. (2024)., in: Decreto Legislativo 3 maggio 2024, n. 62. Definizione della condizione di disabilità, della valutazione di base, di accomodamento ragionevole, della valutazione multidimensionale per l’elaborazione e attuazione del progetto di vita individuale personalizzato e partecipato. (24G00079), Generale, Vol. 105. (Rome, Italy: Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana Serie).
Keywords: disability measurement, functioning, ICF, patient-reported outcome measure, PRISMA-COSMIN guideline, psychometric properties, systematic review, WHODAS 2.0
Citation: Federici S, Tosti A, Russo EA and Conigli L (2026) Measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child: a systematic review of global psychometric studies in specific populations since 2010. Front. Psychiatry 17:1737452. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1737452
Received: 04 November 2025; Accepted: 05 January 2026; Revised: 03 January 2026;
Published: 26 January 2026.
Edited by:
Reuben Escorpizo, University of Vermont, United StatesReviewed by:
Teresa Sanchez-Gutierrez, University of Cordoba, SpainSharon Barak, Ariel University, Israel
Copyright © 2026 Federici, Tosti, Russo and Conigli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stefano Federici, c3RlZmFuby5mZWRlcmljaUB1bmlwZy5pdA==
†ORCID: Stefano Federici, orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-0633
Alessandro Tosti, orcid.org/0009-0005-7613-3971
Elena A. Russo, orcid.org/0009-0006-2908-5978
Lorenzo Conigli, orcid.org/0009-0003-5903-0984