An Analysis of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 Measurement Model Using Partial Least Squares

Abstract

The researchers examined the factor structure and model specifications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) with confirmatory tetrad analysis (CTA) using partial least squares–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with a sample of adult clients (N = 298) receiving individual therapy at a university-based counseling research center. The CTA and PLS-SEM results identified the formative nature of the WHODAS 2.0 subscale scores, supporting an alternative measurement model of the WHODAS 2.0 scores as a second-order formative–formative model.

Keywords

confirmatory tetrad analysis disability assessment factor structure model specification partial least squares structural equation modeling World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

(2001). Definitions of disability and their operationalization, and measurement in survey data: An update. Research in Social Sciences and Disability, 2, 77-100.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bollen

Lennox

(1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305

Bollen

K. A.

Ting

(2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5, 3-22.

Buist-Bouwman

M. A.

Ormel

De Graaf

Vilagut

Alonso

Van Sonderen

Vollebergh

W. M.

(2008). Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17, 185-197. doi:10.1002/mpr.261

Cheung

M. T.

Hung

A. F.

Poon

P. K.

Fong

D. T.

L. W.

Chow

E. L.

. . . Liou

(2015). 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. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37, 1902-1907. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.989336

Chiu

Yen

C. M.

Chou

Lin

Hwang

Liao

Chi

(2014). 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. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 2812-2820. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009

Dijkstra

T. K.

Henseler

(2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39, 297-316.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

10.

Federici

Bracalenti

Meloni

Luciano

J. V.

(2017). World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39, 2347-2380. doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177

11.

Federici

Meloni

Mancini

Lauriola

Olivetti Belardinelli

(2009). World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: Contribution to the Italian validation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31, 553-564.

12.

Galindo-Garre

Hidalgo

M. D.

Guilera

Pino

Rojo

J. E.

Gómez-Benito

(2015). Modeling the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II using nonparametric item response models. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 24, 1-10. doi:10.1002/mpr.1462

13.

Garin

Ayuso-Mateos

J. L.

Almansa

Nieto

Chatterji

Vilagut

… Ferrer

(2010). Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health And Quality Of Life Outcomes, 8, 51. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-51

14.

Garson

G. D.

(2016). Partial least squares: Regression and structural equation models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates.

15.

Graham

J. W.

(2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

16.

Guilera

Gómez-Benito

Pino

Ó.

Rojo

J. E.

Cuesta

M. J.

Martínez-Arán

. . . Rejas

(2012). Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 138, 240-247. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2012.03.031

17.

Guilera

Gómez-Benito

Pino

Ó.

Rojo

Vieta

Cuesta

M. J.

. . . Rejas

(2015). Disability in bipolar I disorder: The 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Journal of Affective Disorders, 174, 353-360. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.028

18.

Gudergan

S. P.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Will

(2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1238-1249.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

20.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Gudergan

S. P.

(2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Howell

R. D.

Breivik

Wilcox

J. B.

(2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12, 205-218.

23.

Jarvis

C. B.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218. doi:10.1086/376806

24.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press

25.

Kock

(2017). WarpPLS user manual: Version 6.0. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.

26.

Küçükdeveci

A. A.

Kutlay

Ş.

Yıldızlar

Öztuna

Elhan

A. H.

Tennant

(2013). The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 214-220.

27.

Little

(1988). A test of missingness completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

28.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Jarvis

(2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710-730.

29.

Magistrale

Pisani

Argento

Incerti

C. C.

Bozzali

Cadavid

… Nocentini

(2015). Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 21(4), 448-456. doi:10.1177/1352458514543732

30.

Moen

V. P.

Drageset

Eide

G. E.

Klokkerud

Gjesdal

(2017). Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway. Quality of Life Research, 26, 505-514. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1384-5

31.

Mvududu

N. H.

Sink

C. A.

(2013). Factor analysis in counseling research and practice. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 4, 75-98.

32.

Osborne

J. W.

(2013). Best practices in data cleaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Pösl

Cieza

Stucki

(2007). Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1521-1531. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4

34.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Ali

(2018). Partial least squares-structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9, 238-248.

35.

Rehm

Üstun

T. B.

Saxena

Nelson

C. B.

Chatterji

Ivis

Adlaf

(1999). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110-122. doi:10.1002/mpr.61

36.

Rigdon

E. E.

(2005). Structural Equation Modeling: Nontraditional Alternatives. In Everitt

B. S.

Howell

D. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. doi:10.1002/0470013192.bsa602

37.

Rigdon

E. E.

(2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45, 341-358.

38.

Rigdon

E. E.

(2015). Structural equation modeling: Nontraditional alternatives. In Balakrishnan

Colton

Everitt

Piegorsch

Ruggeri

Teugels

J. L.

(Eds.), Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online (pp. 1-12). Chichester, England: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118445112

39.

Rigdon

E. E.

(2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective. European Management Journal, 34, 598-605.

40.

Rigdon

E. E.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM; Five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing ZFP, 39(3), 4-16. doi:10.15358/0344-1369-2017-3-4

41.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J. M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH.

42.

Sarstedt

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Thiele

K. O.

Gudergan

S. P.

(2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69, 3998-4010.

43.

Sousa

R. M.

Dewey

M. E.

Acosta

Jotheeswaran

Castro-Costa

Ferri

C. P.

. . . Prince

M. J.

(2010). Measuring disability across cultures: The psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries: The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19, 1-17. doi:10.1002/mpr.299

44.

Stucki

(2016). Olle Höök Lectureship 2015: The World Health Organization’s paradigm shift and implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 48, 486-493. doi:10.2340/16501977-2109

45.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

46.

Üstün

T. B.

Chatterji

Kostanjsek

Rehm

Kennedy

Epping-Jordan

. . . Pull

(2010a). Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 815-823. doi:10.2471/BLT.09.067231

47.

Üstün

T. B.

Kostanjsek

Chatterji

Rehm

(Eds.). (2010b). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. WHODAS 2.0. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

48.

World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to consequences of disease. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

49.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

50.

Zhao

H. P.

Liu

H. L.

Zhang

Y. J.

Wang

(2013). Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0. Quality of Life Research, (4), 897. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0212-9

An Analysis of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 Measurement Model Using Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References