Article Sidebar

Submitted
9 June 2019
Accepted
27 August 2021
Published
5 September 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 944 Download : 1604

Main Article Content

Abstract

The study was to prove the validity and reliability of the WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version questionnaire in patients with back pain. This study was an observational cross-sectional study conducted in 2018. The study included the filling of WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version, Indonesian version of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, Wong-Baker Scale, conducted at Department of Rehabilitative Medicine, Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia, against 82 respondents with back pain. Each respondent was given informed consent. The validity of the WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version questionnaire was measured using Pearson's test on the correlation of WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire with r >0.3 (0.862). WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version questionnaire and Wong-Baker Scale had r >0.3 (0.449–0.785). The reliability of the WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version questionnaire was measured using Pearson's correlation test with r >0.3 (0.764–0.866). WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version's internal reliability was tested using Cronbach-Alfa Test with alpha >0.6 (0.634–, 853). In conclusion, the WHODAS 2.0 - Indonesian version is a valid and reliable questionnaire for patients with back pain.

 

Keywords

WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version Validity WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version reliability WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 WHODAS 2.0 Indonesian version human & health

Article Details

License

  • Folia Medica Indonesiana is a scientific peer-reviewed article which freely available to be accessed, downloaded, and used for research purposes. Folia Medica Indonesiana (p-ISSN: 2541-1012; e-ISSN: 2528-2018) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Manuscripts submitted to Folia Medica Indonesiana are published under the terms of the Creative Commons License. The terms of the license are:

    Attribution ” You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

    NonCommercial ” You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

    ShareAlike ” If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

    No additional restrictions ” You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

    You  are free to :

    Share ” copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.

    Adapt ” remix, transform, and build upon the material.

How to Cite
Rijanti, K. A., Subadi, I., & Kurniawati, P. M. (2021). Validity and Reliability of WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) Type 12 Questions Indonesian Version on Back Pain. Folia Medica Indonesiana, 57(3), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.20473/fmi.v57i3.13580
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Allegri M, Montella S, Salici F, et al (2016). Mechanisms of low back pain: a guide for diagnosis and therapy. F1000Research 5, 1-11.
  2. Altinel L, Kose K, Ergan V, et al (2008). The prevalence of low back pain and risk factor among adults population in Afyon Region Turkey. Acta Traumatol Turc 42, 328-333.
  3. Andini F (2015). Risk factors of low back pain in workers. Medical Journal of Lampung University 4, 12-19.
  4. Cheung MKT, Hung ATF, Poon PKK, et al (2015). Validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II Chinese traditional version (WHODAS-II CT) in person with disabilities and chronic illnesses for Chinese population. Disabilty and Rehabilitation 37, 1902-190.
  5. Katri L, Tuomas V, Anita P, et al (2015). Measuring perceived pain among people with musculoskeletal disorders: Correlation between numeric rating scale and Whodas 2.0. Turku ICF Study. J Rehabil Med Suppl 54, 476
  6. Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Yildizlar D, et al (2013). The reliability and validity of the world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation 35, 214-220.
  7. Kutlay S (2011). Validation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int 31, 339-346.
  8. Meesters J, Verhoef J (2009). Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology 49, 326-33.
  9. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Vanti C, et al (2012). Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Italian subjects with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 21, 122-129.
  10. Poesl M (2004). Evaluation of the world health organization disability assessment schedule II (WHO DAS II) – German version disability in patients with musculoskeletal diseases, cardiovascular and general internal diseases, stroke, breast cancer and depressive disorder. aus der klinik für physikalische medizin und rehabilitation der ludwig-maximilians. LMU München, German.
  11. Una E, Liana F (2014). Restricting back pain and subsequent mobility disability in community-living older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 62, 2142-2147.
  12. Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al (2010b). Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ 88, 815-23.
  13. Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, et al (2010a). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. WHO Press, Swiss.
  14. Vanti C, Ferrari S, Villafan ̃e JH, et al (2017). Responsiveness and minimum important change of the OswestryDisability Index in Italian subjects with symptomatic lumbarspondylolisthesis. J Orthop Traumatol 18, 145-150.
  15. Wang YXJ, Wang J-Q, Kaplar Z (2016). Increased low back pain prevalence in females than in males after menopause age: evidences based on synthetic literature review. Quant Imaging Med Surg 6, 199-206.