Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Inpatient forensic psychiatric rehabilitation is based on patient symptoms, life activities performance and perceived risks to self and others. Self-ratings provide insights into patients’ perspectives. We have found differences between self-ratings and staff-ratings using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS). To understand rating differences, we performed a qualitative study exploring patients’ reasoning when self-rating WHODAS. Eighteen participants with a psychotic disorder and a history of aggression, cared for at a low to medium secure forensic psychiatric inpatient clinic in Sweden, were interviewed using verbal concurrent probing when self-rating the WHODAS. Participants’ responses during the concurrent probing interview were summarised under three central themes: difficulties understanding and expressing language associated with the questionnaire; cognitive difficulties; and contextual rating difficulties. The analysis of two additional questions, about meaningfulness and validity, resulted in one further theme: Value of doing the rating. The usability of the questionnaire and of the self-rating process was not uniform, given differences in participants’ language-related and cognitive abilities, as well as some questions not being readily applicable to an inpatient setting. Overall, the questions may prompt self-reflection, which could increase patient participation and self-awareness.

Keywords

disability forensic psychiatry psychosis schizophrenia WHODAS 2.0

Introduction

In Sweden, individuals who have committed a crime under the influence of a severe mental disorder may be sentenced to forensic psychiatric care. Forensic psychiatric care is a specialised branch of psychiatry, governed by laws that differ across countries. In Sweden, the duration of care is not specified at the time of sentencing but rather determined by an individual's treatment needs and recidivism risk. The average duration of forensic psychiatric care is 89.7 months, although even longer for patients suffering from psychotic spectrum disorders (Sivak et al., 2023).

In forensic psychiatric care, the rehabilitation process is based on the patient's risk profile, psychosocial function and symptoms. Participation in daily routines, psychoeducational interventions, and assisted community-based social and occupational training form part of the rehabilitation process (Selvin et al., 2021). Assessment of a person's functional level should be reliable and valid. In addition to observational assessments by trained professionals, interview-based assessments are also used. The 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) is a well-established semi-structured instrument that measures perceived difficulties in performing daily activities over the 30 days prior to the assessment (Kostanjsek et al., 2010). WHODAS can be self-rated, staff-rated or used as an interview tool. Functional difficulties are measured in six domains: Understanding and communicating; Mobility; Self-care; Getting along; Life activities; and Participation. Each question is scored from 1 to 5 (1 = none, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe and 5 = extreme/cannot). WHODAS 2.0 has good psychometric reliability, showing domain test-retest intraclass coefficients between 0.93 and 0.96, items in each domain reflecting the underlying domains with good to very good accuracy (Cronbach alphas of 0.47 to 0.94; WHO manual). It demonstrates sensitivity to change over time and has moderate to strong face validity compared with several other measures (Federici et al., 2017). The Swedish version of WHODAS 2.0 showed similar Cronbach alphas in a general population (Noren et al., 2023) and good reliability and convergent validity in a psychiatric outpatient setting (Midhage et al., 2021). Additionally, the Swedish 12-item WHODAS has been validated in outpatients with psychotic disorders with confirmatory factor analysis and demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.89) and strong construct validity (Holmberg et al., 2021).

Self-rating of daily-life functioning provides an insight into the patient's perspective and supports person-centred care. Previous research has shown differences between the self-ratings of patients with psychosis spectrum disorders and staff-ratings using WHODAS, and because of this, several studies have advised against the use of self-ratings (Akinsulore et al., 2015), while others have argued for the need to include both types of ratings, given the discrepancy in, for example, a forensic psychiatric sample (Kallman et al., 2024). Svensson et al. (2024) highlighted the importance for patients that staff consider their narratives, perspectives and aspirations in forming rehabilitation plans. The WHODAS is an instrument that can further this process, but to better understand potential sources of assessment differences and patient-perceived needs, it is important to understand its utility. As a step to potentially implementing this in clinical practice, it is imperative that we better understand sources of confusion for patients, whether they be within the instrument or are intrinsic to the person rating it. A method to achieve this is utilising the cognitive interview (Willis, 2005), which focuses on identifying potential errors in the design of the survey in different patient groups by identifying themes that describe the perceived difficulties (Husebo et al., 2018). This method can contribute to the understanding of how patients reason about their responses (Tourangeau, 1984). In this study, we use a cognitive interview strategy with concurrent patient self-rating of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 to elucidate common themes that can affect the translation of the instrument into clinical practice.

Method

Design

An explorative qualitative design was used. Data for this study were collected as part of a larger mixed-methods study of how forensic psychiatric patients regard their possible disabilities and form part of the Stockholm Forensic Psychiatry Project.

Data Collection

The study was conducted at the North Section of the Stockholm Forensic Psychiatry inpatient service. A total of 18 patients with a psychotic disorder and a history of aggression were invited to participate by a staff member not involved with the patients’ care at the inpatient service. After written informed consent, the audio-recorded interviews were conducted from August to December 2019.

Inclusion criteria were adults (>20 years) with psychotic spectrum disorder (psychosis NOS and schizophrenia) according to DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), cared for >3 months and mentally stable with any substance use disorder in remission. Exclusion criteria were moderate or severe intellectual developmental disorder, pre-existing brain injury, central nervous system disorders, untreated endocrine diseases and inadequate Swedish language skills.

Verbal concurrent probing is a technique based on psychological theories of language comprehension, memory and judgement. It demonstrates a strong ability to capture problems associated with response validity in surveys (Schwarz, 2007; Tourangeau, 1984). This technique has the advantage of removing some of the cognitive burden from the respondent and minimising memory biases (Willis, 1999) and was therefore applied in this study.

We performed ‘item by item concurrent probing’ (Willis, 1999) of how participants interpreted and perceived the questions in the WHODAS questionnaire, excluding the ‘work/school activities’ section in domain 5, Life Activities, as per instructions to the WHODAS when somebody lacks participation in paid work/school (Kostanjsek et al., 2010). After each main question was answered, clarification questions were asked (see Supplemental File S1). In addition to the concurrent verbal probing procedure, participants were asked to answer two extra questions: (i) whether they view the WHODAS questions as meaningful; and (ii) whether they judge the WHODAS questions valid regarding their situation on the ward.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face by the first author; a psychiatric nurse specialist trained in interviewing forensic psychiatric patients using WHODAS and with no prior relationship with the participants. Due to clinic procedures, a staff member had to be present in the room. The participant had the opportunity to choose which staff member. After the first interview, the first and second authors listened to the audio recording to judge if adjustments to the semi-structured guide were required. A probing question regarding paraphrasing was added. All interviews were transcribed verbatim from complete audiotapes, and where syntax and meaning were difficult to ascertain, the first author listened to and checked the transcriptions multiple times. The second author listened to a subset of the recordings to verify the transcripts. Some field notes were made regarding answering WHODAS items on ‘sexual activities’ and ‘maintaining a friendship’, since some participants reacted to these questions with signs of distress and raised voices, which the interviewer interpreted as anger. These feelings were confirmed by the additional questions (i and ii).

The quotes were first translated into English verbatim by the last author, accounting only for different word sequences in English but maintaining incorrect syntax when present. A professional translator was then asked to back-translate this into Swedish. Translation and backtranslation were performed by different translators, enhancing methodological rigour (Yunus et al., 2022). Discrepancies were resolved in discussion between the first and last authors.

Qualitative Content Analysis

A qualitative content analysis (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Graneheim et al., 2017) was used to analyse the concurrent probing data. Themes were identified and analysed inductively and not driven by a predetermined theoretical framework.

Verbatim transcripts were read through several times independently by the first and second authors for familiarisation with the data; thereafter, units of meaning were condensed and coded independently by the first and second authors with only minor discrepancies. The shared meaning of each code was discussed by the co-coders to reach agreement, a procedure to increase validity (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). After coding 12 interviews, the data were considered redundant by both researchers (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022). Codes were sorted into sub-themes and unified into themes after joint discussion with all authors until consensus was reached (Graneheim et al., 2017). No contradiction of themes was found. Examples of responses and classifications are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Verbatim Quotes, Sub-Themes and Themes.

Quote	Sub-theme	Theme
WHODAS D6.3 How much of a problem did you have living with dignity because of the attitudes and actions of others? Participant: I don’t understand the question Interviewer: Do you know what dignity means? Participant: No. (Participant 9)	Difficulty comprehending concepts	Difficulties understanding and expressing language
WHODAS D6.2: How much of a problem did you have because of barriers or hindrances in the world around you? Interviewer: Can you give examples? Participant: Like that you go somewhere despite you not being able to go there/…/. So on that question I say medium. (Participant 11)	Trouble expressing thoughts	Difficulties understanding and expressing language
WHODAS D2.1: How much difficulty did you have standing for long periods, such as 30 minutes? Participant: To stand for a longer period like 30 minutes. What does that mean? Who can cope with standing in one place. Who can stand like for 30 minutes and not do anything? (Participant 17)	Difficulty thinking in abstract terms	Cognitive difficulties
WHODAS D1.1: How much difficulty did you have in concentrating on doing something for 10 minutes? Participant: I can’t remember. (Participant 4)	Memory difficulties
WHODAS D6.3 How much of a problem did you have living with dignity because of the attitudes and actions of others? Participant: No problems. Interview note: (forgets to circle answer) (Participant 6)	Impaired working memory
WHODAS D3.4: How much difficulty did you have in staying by yourself for a few days? Participant: None. I haven’t actually been alone for a long time but I have previously been alone for a number of days. (Participant 2)	Rating outside timeframe	Contextual rating difficulties
D2.4 In the past 30 days, how much difficulty did you have in: Getting out of your home? Participant: Extremely. There are several reasons why it is extremely difficult to get out, it is very locked ward… So it's hard to get out. (Participant 13)	Adjust question/answer to fit environment	Contextual rating difficulties
[The questions] are things that are about you now. (Participant 12)	Satisfaction with the questions	Value of doing the rating
Participant: They are sensitive (question about sexual activities). Interviewer: In what way are they sensitive? Participant: Private! (Participant 14)	Sensitive question
Sort of, it's not really made for wards that are locked up. (Participant 16)	Not the targeted group
Participant: When did you do drugs or take alcohol most recently. Interviewer: That question is important and needs to be added. Participant: Yes. (Participant 7)	Suggested improvements

All four authors were female, two were psychiatric nurse specialists, two were psychiatrists, and three had PhDs. The authors had combined experience in qualitative research, forensic psychiatric research and practice. We acknowledge our understanding of theories of functional impairments in individuals with schizophrenia and consider this a strength in the analysis (Thibaudeau et al., 2021).

Results

Participants had been inpatients in forensic psychiatric care for 3 to 34 months (mean 11.94), the mean age was 33 years (25–57 years), 14 (78%) were men, and 11 (61%) had only completed primary school. The average interview time was 34.27 minutes (18.24–60.58 minutes), as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Data.

	n = 18	(% or range)
Interview time (minutes)	34.27	(18.24–60.58)
Sex males	14	(78%)
Age (years) †	33.0	(22–57)
Education level
Elementary school	11	(61%)
Secondary school	5	(28%)
Vocational training	2	(11%)
University	0	(0%)
Salaried work	0
WHODAS Overall score	18	(3–35)
Months in forensic psychiatric care†	11.94	(3–34)
Aggression psychotically motivated	15	(83%)
Diagnosis
Schizophrenia	17	(94%)
Psychosis NOS	1	(6%)
Antipsychotic dose ^‡†	20.61	(5.00–70.00)
SAPS †	8.33	(0.00–26.00)
SANS †	22.94	(2.00–48.00)
WAIS
Matrices †	7.72	(4–14)
Information †	7.44	(3–12)

† Median.

^‡

Antipsychotic dose measured as Haloperidol equivalent dose (mg/day).

SAPS = Scale for assessment of positive symptoms. SANS = Scale for assessment of negative symptoms. WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, scaled scores.

Responses to Concurrent Probing Questions

Problems were reported or observed for 26 of the 32 questionnaire items. In all, participants reported 178 problems. Only six items had no reported problems regarding understanding, D2.2 (Standing up from sitting down?), D2.5, D3.1 (Washing your whole body?), D3.3 (Eating?), D4.3 (Getting along with people who are close to you?) and D6.8 (How much of a problem did you have in doing things by yourself for relaxation or pleasure?).

General Themes and Problems Related to Forensic Psychiatric Patients' Understanding of the Questions in the WHODAS Questionnaire

All the participants’ responses during the concurrent probing interview fit into three central themes: difficulties understanding the questions and expressing language; cognitive difficulties; and contextual rating difficulties. The analysis of the two additional questions resulted in one further theme: value of doing the rating.

Difficulties Understanding and Expressing Language

Participants described problems related to comprehension of concepts, revealing that keywords and concepts were not fully understood. Comprehension difficulties were present across all WHODAS domains. Participants expressed uncertainty about the meaning of words, and some asked the interviewer what a word meant. Several participants stated during probing that they had problems understanding whole sentences, and some just guessed: ‘At first I found it pretty difficult to understand the question, so I sort of guessed a bit’ (Participant 10). Specific concepts that caused problems included, for example, ‘household tasks’, ‘maintaining’, ‘world around you’ and ‘dignity’. Regardless of not knowing or only guessing what sentences or words meant, some participants rated a disability score on the item in the form.

D5.2. In the past 30 days, how much difficulty did you have in: Doing most important household tasks well?

Interviewer:

Household tasks, what do you think is included in that?

Participant:

/…/ To shower or? (Participant 9)

D6.2 /…/ Because of barriers or hindrances in the world around you?

Participant:

I don’t understand what they mean by the world around you? (Participant 2)

Key words could be understood differently than intended by the WHODAS manual:

D6.1 /…/ Joining in community activities (for example, festivities, religious or other activities) in the same way as anyone else can?

Participant:

(Rates) No problems.

Interviewer:

Can you give an example of activities that you would do to participate in society?

Participant:

Working.

Interviewer:

/… / Any special job?

Participant:

Criminality. (Participant 14)

Participants also displayed difficulties expressing language and sharing their thoughts on how they were reasoning before answering questions.

D1.3 /…/ Analysing and finding solutions to problems in day-to-day life?

Interviewer:

Can you tell me how you approached analysing a situation?

Participant:

Just so, when every time I take medicine, I have to sit outside for half an hour. (Participant 12)

Participants occasionally struggled to explain the reasoning behind their answers, and some individuals faced a combination of difficulties when answering the questions.

D2.3 /…/ Moving around inside your home?

Interviewer:

So you chose a “little” rating because you mainly sit.

Participant:

No because everyone has their own opinion, own problems at home. That's why I chose “little” …. Yes, if I’m not allowed to play then there is a problem if my little brother sits and plays. I can’t just remove my brother from there when he has the controls and is playing. (Participant 17)

Cognitive Difficulties

Participants reported cognitive difficulties when completing the questionnaire, which the interviewer observed. Regarding thinking in abstract terms, participants seemed to interpret the WHODAS questions concretely rather than in general or abstract terms, without processing theoretical concepts. This type of difficulty was evident when participants’ reasoning was tied to the exact wording of a question.

D2.1 /…/ Standing for long periods, such as 30 minutes?

Participant:

One can’t cope with standing for 30 minutes in one spot, so one changes positions. (Participant 14)

Several participants’ responses alluded to difficulties with remembering retrospectively over a 30-day timeframe. However, the interviewer observed that for some, the probing questions aided participants to reflect on their answers, enabling them to give responses that they would not otherwise have given because of poor memory.

D2.1 /…/ Standing for long periods, such as 30 minutes?

Participant:

I can’t remember the last time I did that. (Participant 2)

Impaired working memory led to experienced difficulties recalling the instructions in the WHODAS questionnaire, and some individuals forgot to rate their disability.

D6.2 /…/ Because of barriers or hindrances in the world around you?

Participant:

No, nothing (forgets to rate the question). (Participant 6)

The interviewer noticed that participants experienced further difficulties filling out the form, such as losing concentration and rating their answers in the wrong row of the questionnaire or just stopping to rate until the interviewer reminded them to continue to the next question.

D6.6 /…/ Has your health been a drain on the financial resources of you or your family?

Interviewer:

So, what would you like to circle?

Participant:

Big I would say.

Interviewer:

I think you just circled on the wrong row. (Participant 15)

Another observed problem when completing the form was that participants skipped the instructions at the beginning of the questionnaire and answered about ability rather than disability. Only with the probing question did the participants become aware of their mistake.

D1.3 /…/ Analysing and finding solutions to problems in day-to-day life?

Interviewer:

Analyse and find solutions to day to day problems?

Participant:

This is big also.

Interviewer:

Big problems?

Participant:

Is it problems we talk about here? (Participant 17)

The interviewers also noted an inconsistency regarding participants’ ability to rate the number of days with experienced difficulties in the H-section, in relation to previous answers. Eight participants emphasised that they didn’t experience any difficulties within a 30-day time frame, despite earlier in the interview rating difficulties. It was obvious that these overarching H-questions were difficult to answer. Only three of eighteen participants answered in a way that conformed with their earlier answers regarding experienced difficulties.

H1 Overall, in the past 30 days, how many days were these difficulties present?

Participant:

Which difficulties? (Participant 18)

Contextual Rating Difficulties

Participants expressed that they had problems answering with a 30-day timeframe due to a lack of experience since residing in a forensic psychiatric ward. Rating ‘without experiencing any difficulties’ was quite common, while some participants rated their difficulties outside the timeframe. For instance, some participants chose to disregard the timeframe and rated how they envisioned future difficulties, while others based their ratings on their past.

D3.4 /…/ Staying by yourself for a few days?

Participant:

No difficulties.

Interviewer:

How did you arrive at this answer?

Participant:

When I was at home like and when my parents went to work, then I was alone. (Participant 11)

Some adjusted the question to fit the environment, and others reported rating difficulties due to the environment rather than their own disability.

D3.4 /…/ Staying by yourself for a few days?

Participant:

None (rating). I haven’t been alone here at the hospital… But if you, for example, count being in your own room then there is no difficulty. (Participant 8)

Value of Doing the Rating

Despite difficulties experienced in connection with answering the WHODAS questionnaire, several different opinions were put forward by the participants regarding the overall usability and acceptability, as displayed regarding satisfaction with the questions.

The questionnaire was highly valued by many participants because it focused on their everyday lives, how they handled them, and how they viewed them. Participant:

They [the questions] how one feels, thinks and how one views things. /…/ Ehh, I think it is quite interesting as it makes you think about yourself in a way one usually doesn't. (Participant 1)

Participants perceived answering the WHODAS questionnaire as meaningful because they thought that the questions were about them: ‘For they are about me’ (Participant 12). Participant:

They are meaningful.

Interviewer:

Why do they feel meaningful?

Participant:

Yes, one can evaluate on one's own how things have been. (Participant 11)

However, some participants found the questions sensitive and invasive of their private sphere. This was evident especially for the question regarding sexual activities. Moreover, there were instances when the WHODAS questions evoked frustration among participants, prompting them to question the questionnaire items.

D4.5 /…/ Sexual activities?

Participant:

These are sensitive (question about sexual activities).

Interviewer:

Sensitive in what way?

Participant:

Private. (Participant 14)

The questions were also described as providing an ‘insight’ (Participant 5) regarding disability in everyday life: ‘which problems one can have in everyday life as opposed to with society and particularly oneself’ (Participant 16). This led to a deeper understanding and a broader view of their own situation.

Furthermore, the questions were perceived as a health check and a reminder of progress, thus providing bearings in the rehabilitation process. Participant:

Have time to scrutinize oneself in a way one otherwise doesn’t. So pretty good and important questions to reflect over. (Participant 8)

Some participants didn’t experience themselves as a target group for the questionnaire and thought that WHODAS was better suited for others with more severe health problems, especially for individuals with physical disabilities. Participant:

No that was a lot around the state of health. I have big psychological problems, but the only reason I would not be able to manage these questions is if I had some type of physical handicap. (Participant 2)

Other participants highlighted the difficulties answering the questions since they were not adjusted to patients spending their daily life in a forensic psychiatric rehabilitation clinic. Participant:

Not because it is the last 30 days because I have been here for 30 days… No so they are not so current… for here it is not the same thing as being outside. It's a very sheltered environment here. (Participant 18)

The participants highlighted difficulties with specific questions and suggested improvements. In particular, the H-questions were considered difficult. These were seen as touching on more than one issue, but only allowing one answer. Another problem that was raised regarding the design of the H-questions was that difficulties may vary from week to week, and therefore it is difficult to estimate an average. Participant:

Also, this how much time you should, which difficulties because of your health the last 30 days, with how much time you have spent on your health? It becomes like 2 questions with different answers. (Participant 16)

Two other aspects of the questionnaire design that participants brought up were that some questions were perceived as missing, and others were perceived as recurring in several places. Participant:

(Missing question) When did you last use drugs? Ah for those who haven’t used they can, what's it called, fill in, so proud, that I haven’t done it. (Participant 7)

Participant:

Some of the questions were very like each other. (Participant 15)

The three questions that most participants had difficulties with were D2.1 (Standing for long periods, such as 30 minutes?), which they tended to interpret literally. D3.4 (Staying by yourself for a few days?), which they generally thought was difficult when they live with others in the hospital. D5.1 (Taking care of your household responsibilities?) where they were overall not sure about the meaning of the term ‘household responsibilities’.

Discussion

This study is the first qualitative study of individuals with psychotic disorders residing within a forensic psychiatric service that examines thought processes employed when self-rating the WHODAS questionnaire. The analysis resulted in the identification of three central themes: difficulties understanding and expressing language; cognitive difficulties; and contextual rating difficulties. The value to the individual of doing the rating was also explored, resulting in one further theme: value of doing the rating, where some expressed positive views that WHODAS focuses on everyday life and that answering the questions served as an eye opener regarding personal disabilities/support needs. Others felt that the context and the tool itself hampered usability.

Schwarz (2007) identified the underpinnings of constructed questionnaires as language comprehension, memory and judgement. In this study, we found problems in just these aspects when using the WHODAS in individuals with psychosis, a disorder marked by varying degrees of cognitive dysfunction and impaired social functioning (Świtaj et al., 2012). Whilst thought disorder manifesting through abnormal speech patterns is common in schizophrenia (Comparelli et al., 2020), this should not directly impact the understanding of questions and ratings per se; they will, however, influence the verbal description of the reasoning behind answers as seen here. Yet thought disorder is also associated with difficulties in problem-solving and social cognition, leading to significant disability in terms of daily-life functioning (Oeztuerk et al., 2022) as well as negative effects on social interaction and therapeutic alliances in a care setting (de de Sousa et al., 2019).

Less well researched is that language comprehension differs significantly in some individuals with schizophrenia compared with healthy individuals (Ziv et al., 2022). Our findings highlight that participants had difficulties understanding relatively simple concepts, such as ‘household chores’, as well as complex and theoretical ones. Misunderstanding even simple questions, such as ‘difficulties in standing for 30 minutes’, was evident in several participants’ answers. Of concern to the care process is that some patients guessed the meaning of a word rather than asking for help understanding it. These difficulties affect conversations about the domains in WHODAS and indicate that such discussions, even about simple everyday tasks, need to be particularly precise and include more follow-up questions to support the conversation.

Another possible source of language-concept errors in the self-ratings, especially when many patients misunderstood particular questions, is a problem with the wording of the questions. An example of this is answering that they had no problems with being alone, rather than saying they had no issues living independently to manage self-care. On closer inspection, this may be because specific questions in the Swedish version target concepts that differ from those in the English version. For example, the question D3.4 Difficulties in ‘Staying by yourself for a few days’ in the context of feeding and dressing is translated as ‘Being alone for a few days’, conjuring more issues of loneliness and neediness, which many of our respondents appeared to be addressing. Likewise, the question D4.5 How much difficulty did you have in ‘Sexual activities’ in the past 30 days? is translated in Swedish to difficulties in being ‘sexually close to someone’, which differs in that it not only encompasses sexual function but it also creates an expectation of intimacy and relationship within that function. We are unsure whether this relates to the anger respondents expressed in their responses to this question.

Impairments in abstract thinking are a known cognitive deficit in many individuals with schizophrenia (Gebreegziabhere et al., 2022). In the current study, disturbance in participants’ cognitive processes manifested principally as an inflexible, detailed and concrete understanding of the WHODAS items and problematic conceptual interpretations. Furthermore, cognitive impairments are strongly associated with impaired long-term memory (Guo et al., 2019) and working memory (Sheffield et al., 2018). Cognitive impairment related to working memory affects individuals’ ability to remember and process information during quite a short time frame (Wu & Jiang, 2020), and this became evident when participants repeatedly forgot the instructions on the WHODAS questionnaire and had to ask the interviewer for guidance. Moreover, in the H-section, participants had obvious difficulties remembering their scoring of the effect of difficulties and providing an answer regarding how many days the difficulties had affected their lives. It has been suggested that individuals with schizophrenia, especially those suffering from severe psychopathological conditions and adverse symptoms, may experience a reduced ability to estimate time (Mavrogiorgou et al., 2022). Specific questions targeting participants’ feelings of time and time estimates when performing the WHODAS items were not included in the present study. Still, they could provide valuable information in future psychometric evaluations of the questionnaire. The pronounced findings in this study may reflect the lower intellectual abilities of many of our participants and cannot be viewed as generalisable to all individuals with schizophrenia.

Under the theme ‘Contextual rating difficulties’, participants reported that the care context affected their assessments. They did this by directly stating that the limitations of the environment caused impairments. This is in line with previous studies that point out that forensic psychiatric care is a restrictive care environment which inhibits patient autonomy (Magnusson et al., 2020). The WHODAS manual makes clear that there is an environmental impact which WHODAS does not consider (Kostanjsek et al., 2010). To cope with this contextual difficulty, some participants adapted the timeframes to answer the questions, a factor to bear in mind if using the WHODAS in clinical care. In fact, it would be recommended to adapt the timelines so that pre-forensic care periods and current time frames are rated separately. Even after adjusting their answers to prior experience, some participants solved the contextual problem by anticipating future functions, not necessarily understanding that some of these questions could be answered based on current tasks and experiences. This can be seen in the context of their limited scope for action, as care decisions have been made by the administrative court, making it difficult for the nurses to fully support patient participation (Magnusson et al., 2020). Being heard in the forensic psychiatric setting is important for the rehabilitative content to have meaning for the patient (Gildberg et al., 2010); this can occur through self-assessments. Even though participants experienced several difficulties in responding, thereby reducing the questionnaire's usability, answering the items was perceived as valuable because it enabled them to engage with their life narrative, as seen in previous research (Svensson et al., 2024). At the same time, some patients believe that WHODAS is better suited to others with more serious illnesses and physical conditions than they themselves. But for most patients, it seems that answering the questions helped participants reflect on their psychosocial disabilities. Providing forensic psychiatric patients with time and space to reflect on their individual performance in daily-life activities could increase their motivation to participate in daily routines as practice for reintegration into society, along with enhancing patients’ participation in their care (Selvin et al., 2021).

Strengths and Weaknesses

In this study, the sample size was relatively small; however, qualitative research is often based on small samples and on information richness. Even though data was considered redundant when no new codes were identified after 12 interviews, we improved the reliability of the data by including all 18 individuals in this study.

Concurrent probing techniques, whilst avoiding memory bias, have been criticised for potentially introducing bias, since questions may lead respondents to a specific answer (Willis, 2015). To minimise such bias, we strove to select non-leading probes.

Providing verbatim transcriptions to the participants for validation would not have yielded any quality improvements, given the extended time period between the interviews and the subsequent transcription and analysis stages. Furthermore, having staff present during the interviews and ratings may have affected participants’ ratings, especially if they had not already discussed similar questions with their treatment team or felt it would negatively impact their care process.

The inclusion of individuals who had a history of substance use disorders and or intellectual challenges means we are not able to generalise the findings to schizophrenia per se. The sample does, however, reflect individuals who in Sweden are cared for in a forensic psychiatric setting, enabling some generalisability to that population. A limitation is that we cannot, with our design, rule out the effect of delusions, particularly of a persecutory nature, on a reluctance to admit to issues in the self-ratings. However, the vast majority did not exhibit such delusions at the time of the ratings, and in a subsequent review of the data, we found no indication that these symptoms influenced ratings or reasoning. Furthermore, we did not include women in the sample, meaning we cannot extrapolate the findings of this study to women. The participants were patients at a forensic psychiatric clinic, and thus, the results regarding the usability of WHODAS may not be transferable to patients with psychosis in general.

Practice and Policy Impact

Based on our results, there is a risk of misunderstanding in patient-nurse communication, particularly when using WHODAS self-ratings or when shared understanding of concepts is assumed. This could lead to the wrong support or to no support being given. Our results illustrate the significant demands placed on staff to adapt information and questions in a person-centred way, using good pedagogical and communicative competence, and to check with the individual what they understand about words and concepts. Based on this, interview ratings with the opportunity for follow-up questions are preferable in this patient group, as they tend to prompt self-reflection. But further studies of this kind are of great importance initially in a comparable diagnostic group, but also in general psychiatric outpatient care, and beyond in other psychiatric diagnostic groups.

Conclusion

The usefulness of the WHODAS questionnaire was not uniform, as several participants had difficulty understanding the questions and raised contextual issues, which argue against self-ratings being appropriate in this patient group. On this basis, our findings are in line with the results of quantitative studies on difficulties with self-ratings for people with schizophrenia. The lack of congruence with staff-ratings has been attributed to a lack of insight; yet in this study, we find that the problems are more fundamental in nature. For some individuals, there are significant impairments in understanding language and in judging what the questions are about. Furthermore, we found working memory difficulties in retaining instructions for WHODAS ratings in a subset of participants. Using the WHODAS as a tool in exploring personal views on disabilities within a forensic psychiatric setting may start a process of self-reflection, which could increase patient participation and self-awareness. Based on the findings, it would appear beneficial to consider the purpose of the assessment within the rehabilitation process, including timelines and where patient rehabilitation is carried out. Initial assessment difficulties before admission could be evaluated, while later assessments could focus on difficulties experienced in the ward environment and, later still, when they have leave provisions.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-fmh-10.1177_14999013251395299 - Supplemental material for The Usability of WHODAS Self-Rating for Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients with Schizophrenia

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-fmh-10.1177_14999013251395299 for The Usability of WHODAS Self-Rating for Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients with Schizophrenia by Malin V Källman, Mathilde Hedlund Lindberg, Marianne Kristiansson and Anette GM Johansson in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-fmh-10.1177_14999013251395299 - Supplemental material for The Usability of WHODAS Self-Rating for Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients with Schizophrenia

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-fmh-10.1177_14999013251395299 for The Usability of WHODAS Self-Rating for Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients with Schizophrenia by Malin V Källman, Mathilde Hedlund Lindberg, Marianne Kristiansson and Anette GM Johansson in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend a warm thank you to the patients who, through their participation and openness, have chosen to make this study possible.

ORCID iDs

Malin V Källman

Mathilde Hedlund Lindberg

Marianne Kristiansson

Anette GM Johansson

Ethical Considerations

Approval from the Stockholm Ethics board 2014/827-31/4, addendums approved 2017/219-32, 2018/307-32/4 and Swedish Ethical Review Authority 2019-01422.

Consent to Participate

Patients gave oral and written informed consent whilst clinically stable and after the conclusion of all appeal processes. Information was given verbally as well as in written form.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication was provided by the participants.

Authorship Contribution

Malin V Källman contributed to the conception, data collection, analysis and drafting the manuscript. Mathilde Hedlund Lindberg contributed to the conception, analysis and reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content. Marianne Kristiansson contributed to the conception, analysis and reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content. Anette GM Johansson contributed to the conception, analysis, reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content, supervision and responsible for obtaining funding for the study. All authors approved of the final version and agreed to be accountable.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: the Swedish Research Council [grant number 2021-06362]; Region Stockholm [grant numbers ALF-952824, 951046]; Svenska Läkaresällskapet [grant numbers 779731, 589661]; Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring's fund [grant numbers 00127, 00264].

Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be obtained upon special request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Akinsulore

Mapayi

B. M.

Aloba

O. O.

Oloniniyi

Fatoye

F. O.

Makanjuola

R. O.

(2015). Disability assessment as an outcome measure: A comparative study of Nigerian outpatients with schizophrenia and healthy control. Annals of General Psychiatry, 14, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-015-0079-6

American Psychiatric Association, W. D. (2013). American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5.

Comparelli

Corigliano

Forcina

Bargagna

Montalbani

Falcone

Nardella

Stampatore

Salzer

Pompili

(2020). The Complex relationship among formal thought disorders, neurocognition, and functioning in nonacutely ill schizophrenia patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 208(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001087

de Sousa

Sellwood

Griffiths

Bentall

R. P.

(2019). Disorganisation, thought disorder and socio-cognitive functioning in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 214(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.160

Federici

Bracalenti

Meloni

Luciano

J. V.

(2017). World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(23), 2347–2380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177

Gebreegziabhere

Habatmu

Mihretu

Cella

Alem

(2022). Cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia: An umbrella review. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 272(7), 1139–1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-022-01416-6

Gildberg

F. A.

Elverdam

Hounsgaard

(2010). Forensic psychiatric nursing: A literature review and thematic analysis of staff-patient interaction. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(4), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01533.x

Graneheim

U. H.

Lindgren

B. M.

Lundman

(2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

10.

Guo

J. Y.

Ragland

J. D.

Carter

C. S.

(2019). Memory and cognition in schizophrenia. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0231-1

11.

Hennink

Kaiser

B. N.

(2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

12.

Holmberg

Gremyr

Torgerson

Mehlig

(2021). Clinical validity of the 12-item WHODAS-2.0 in a naturalistic sample of outpatients with psychotic disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03101-9

13.

Husebo

A. M. L.

Morken

I. M.

Eriksen

K. S.

Nordfonn

O. K.

(2018). The patient experience with treatment and self-management (PETS) questionnaire: Translation and cultural adaption of the Norwegian version. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0612-9

14.

Kallman

M. V.

Hedlund-Lindberg

Kristiansson

Johansson

A. G. M.

(2024). A comparison of patient ratings and staff ratings of disability using the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule in individuals with psychotic spectrum disorders who are forensic psychiatric inpatients. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2344

15.

Kostanjsek

Chatterji

Rehm

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

16.

Magnusson

Axelsson

A. K.

Lindroth

(2020). We try’ – How nurses work with patient participation in forensic psychiatric care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 34(3), 690–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12773

17.

Mavrogiorgou

Thomassen

Pott

Flasbeck

Steinfath

Juckel

(2022). Time experience in patients with schizophrenia and affective disorders. European Psychiatry, 65(1), e11. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2

18.

Midhage

Hermansson

Soderberg

Tungstrom

Nordenskjold

Svanborg

Ginsberg

Ramklint

(2021). Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 for use in psychiatric populations - using classical test theory. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 75(7), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2021.1897162

19.

Noren

Karlsson

Ohlsson-Nevo

Moller

Hermansson

(2023). Psychometric evaluation of the WHODAS 2.0 and prevalence of disability in a Swedish general population. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 7(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00580-0

20.

Oeztuerk

O. F.

Pigoni

Antonucci

L. A.

Koutsouleris

(2022). Association between formal thought disorders, neurocognition and functioning in the early stages of psychosis: A systematic review of the last half-century studies. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 272(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-021-01295-3

21.

Schwarz

(2007). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1340

22.

Selvin

Almqvist

Kjellin

Schroder

(2021). Patient participation in forensic psychiatric care: Mental health professionals’ perspective. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30(2), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12806

23.

Sheffield

J. M.

Karcher

N. R.

Barch

D. M.

(2018). Cognitive deficits in psychotic disorders: A lifespan perspective. Neuropsychology Review, 28(4), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-9388-2

24.

Sivak

Forsman

Masterman

(2023). Duration of forensic psychiatric care and subsequent criminal recidivism in individuals sentenced in Sweden between 2009 and 2019. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1129993. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1129993

25.

Svensson

Hildebrand Karlen

Alexiou

Olausson

Holmberg

(2024). Gratitude despite unease among Swedish male forensic psychiatric patients with substance use disorders: An interview study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 19(1), 2418671. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2024.2418671

26.

Świtaj

Anczewska

Chrostek

Sabariego

Cieza

Bickenbach

Chatterji

(2012). Disability and schizophrenia: A systematic review of experienced psychosocial difficulties. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), 193–193. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-193

27.

Thibaudeau

Cellard

Turcotte

Achim

A. M.

(2021). Functional impairments and theory of mind deficits in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis of the associations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 47(3), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbaa182

28.

Tourangeau

(1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In Jabine

Straf

Tanur

Tourangeau

(Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines. National Academy Press.

29.

Willis

G. B.

(1999). Cognitive interviewing: A how to guide. http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/areas/cognitive/interview.pdf

30.

Willis

G. B.

(2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications.

31.

Willis

G. B.

(2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design. Oxford University press.

32.

Jiang

(2020). Schizophrenia-related abnormalities in the triple network: A meta-analysis of working memory studies. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 14(4), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-019-00071-1

33.

Yunus

N. A.

olde Hartman

Lucassen

Barton

Russell

Altun

Sturgiss

(2022). Reporting of the translation process in qualitative health research: A neglected importance. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221145282

34.

Ziv

Baram

Bar

Zilberstein

Itzikowitz

Harel

E. V.

Dershowitz

(2022). Morphological characteristics of spoken language in schizophrenia patients – An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12790

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.42 MB