Purpose. The article below comments and critiques the recently published ‘WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives’ by A. Schlote et al. The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II) is an instrument developed by the World Health Organisation in order to assess behavioural limitations and restrictions to participation experienced by an individual, independently from a medical diagnosis. The conceptual frame of reference of this instrument is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Our aim is not to criticize or defend one definition of disability among the others, but to point out the incoherence in Schlote et al’s definition of the disability. Method. The article critically analyze the differences between the theoretical model underlying the WHODAS II, which is conceptually compatible with the ICF, and the Schlote et al’s statements regarding both the measure (WHODAS II) and the classification (ICF). In the article we will demonstrate A. Schlote et al’s serious errors in defining the theoretical model of the WHODAS II and in doing so critically comment on some aspects of their experimental design. Results. The Schlote et al’s choice of using the Rankin Scale, rather than the SF-36 for the convergent validation arises from the confusion between the linear model of disability (ICIDH) and the circular and multi-determined model (ICF) which leads Schlote et al to confirm their experimental hypotheses, but for all the wrong reasons. Conclusion. According to our opinion, the Schlote et al’s misunderstanding of the WHODAS II and the ICF theoretical framework compromises their experimental design. If scholars do not want to reduce statistical results to mere quantitative scores, but consider them grounded on scientific theoretical hypotheses and expected results, then scholars must deeply examine, understand and accurately refer to relevant literature.
A Note on the Theoretical Framework of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II
FEDERICI, Stefano;MELONI, FABIO
2010
Abstract
Purpose. The article below comments and critiques the recently published ‘WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives’ by A. Schlote et al. The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II) is an instrument developed by the World Health Organisation in order to assess behavioural limitations and restrictions to participation experienced by an individual, independently from a medical diagnosis. The conceptual frame of reference of this instrument is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Our aim is not to criticize or defend one definition of disability among the others, but to point out the incoherence in Schlote et al’s definition of the disability. Method. The article critically analyze the differences between the theoretical model underlying the WHODAS II, which is conceptually compatible with the ICF, and the Schlote et al’s statements regarding both the measure (WHODAS II) and the classification (ICF). In the article we will demonstrate A. Schlote et al’s serious errors in defining the theoretical model of the WHODAS II and in doing so critically comment on some aspects of their experimental design. Results. The Schlote et al’s choice of using the Rankin Scale, rather than the SF-36 for the convergent validation arises from the confusion between the linear model of disability (ICIDH) and the circular and multi-determined model (ICF) which leads Schlote et al to confirm their experimental hypotheses, but for all the wrong reasons. Conclusion. According to our opinion, the Schlote et al’s misunderstanding of the WHODAS II and the ICF theoretical framework compromises their experimental design. If scholars do not want to reduce statistical results to mere quantitative scores, but consider them grounded on scientific theoretical hypotheses and expected results, then scholars must deeply examine, understand and accurately refer to relevant literature.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
