WHODAS 2.0 Ölçeği ile Toplanan Verilerde Kayıp Verilerin Ele Alınma Yaklaşımlarının İncelemesi
Bu çalışmada literatürde Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yeti Yitimi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi 2.0 ölçeği (WHODAS 2.0) uygulanan makalelerde kayıp verioranlarının belirtilip belirtilmediği, kayıp veri analizinin uygulanma durumu ve kayıp veri analizi uygulandı ise ne şekilde uygulandığını değerlendirmekamaçlanmıştır.Literatürde 4 Kasım 1999’dan 6 Nisan 2018’e kadar WHODAS 2.0 uygulanan makaleler taranarak kayıp verilerin analizi için ele alınan yaklaşımlarüzerine sistematik derleme yapılmıştır. Yayınlarda kayıp veri oranlarının genel, alan ve madde bazında verilme durumu değerlendirmiştir. WHODAS2.0 uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen kayıp verilerin ele alınma stratejilerinin ve diğer yaklaşımların nasıl uygulandığı incelenmiştir.Toplam 91 makale özeti gözden geçirilmiş ve 82 makale tam metin incelemesi için seçilmiştir. Son değerlendirmede n=32 makale çalışmaya dahilolmuştur. Taranan yayınlarda genel kayıp ve alan bazında kayıp veri oranı hesaplama durumu %30’un altında kalmıştır. En yüksek kayıp oranına sahipolan bazı maddeler için kayıp oranı veren makale oranı %9,38’dir. Yayınların sadece %50’sinde uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen yaklaşımlar (teklideğer atama ve çoklu değer atama) yazarlar tarafından farklı şekillerde uygulanmıştır.Taranan makaleler arasında kayıp veri analizi için yapılan uygulamalar değerlendirildiğinde tutarlı bir yöntemden bahsetmek güçtür. WHODAS 2.0uygulama kılavuzunda önerilen kayıp veri yaklaşımlarının araştırmacılar tarafından farklı yorum ve uygulamalara açık olduğu gözlenmiştir. Kritikkayıp veri oranı hakkında ortak bir fikir olmadığı gözlenmiştir. Kılavuzda yer verilen iş/okul yaşamı faaliyetleri (D5.8-D5.11) ile ilgili maddelerinyanında D4.5 cinsel faaliyetler maddesinde de sistematik olarak kayıp veri gözlenmiş, bu maddeler için genellikle çift bazında silme yaklaşımına veyaçalışma dışında tutma yöntemine gidilmiştir böylelikle de ölçeğin Rasch modele uyumu ve güvenirliğinin arttığı gözlenmiştir.Bu çalışmanın WHODAS 2.0 özelinde kayıp veriler üzerinde yapılmış ilk çalışma olmasının yanı sıra WHODAS 2.0 uygulayacak araştırmacılara olasıkayıp veri durumlarını yansıtması bakımından yol gösterici olacağı ve de ileri zamanlarda kayıp veriler üzerinde metodolojik olarak yapılacakkarşılaştırmalı çalışmalara öncül bir çalışma olarak faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.
A Study of the Approaches to Treating Missing Data in the Data Collected with the WHODAS 2.0 Scale
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether missing data rates are indicated in articles which applied World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scale (WHODAS 2.0); and to determine if missing data analysis were done and how it was conducted. We conducted a systematic literature review on articles applying WHODAS 2.0 about strategies used for missing data analysis from November 4, 1999, to April 6, 2018. We evaluated whether the rates of missingness is given by domain and item, how the handling missing data strategies proposed in manual for WHODAS 2.0 taken into consideration and other approaches for missing data analysis. A total of 91 abstracts were reviewed and 82 articles chosen for full text review. Thirty-two articles were included in the final evaluation. Below 30% of articles gave the rate of overall missingness and rates by domain. Only 9.38% of articles gave missing rate for some items that have the highest missing rate. In 50% of articles, the approaches proposed in the WHODAS 2.0 manual (single imputation and multiple imputation) were performed in different ways. When analyzing the approaches for missing data analysis among reviewed articles, it is difficult to get a consistent method. Authors implemented missing data approaches proposed in the WHODAS 2.0 application manual in different ways. There is no common sense for the critical rates of missingness. In addition to not applicable items related to work/school life activities (D5.8-D5.11) which is mentioned in the manual, a systematic missingness was observed in D4.5 “sexual activities” item. This study is the first study on missing data in WHODAS 2.0 literature and it can be used as guideline for reflecting possible missing data to researchers who will apply WHODAS 2.0 and also will be useful as a preliminary study on methodological studies on missing data.
___
- 1. Ustun, TB, Kostanjesek, N, Chatterji, S, Rehm, J & World Health Organization
(2010). Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability
Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) / edited by T.B. Üstün, N. Kostanjsek, S.
Chatterji, J.Rehm. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/
iris/handle/10665/43974
- 2. Holvast F, Burger H, de Waal MM, et al. Loneliness is associated with poor
prognosis in late-life depression: Longitudinal analysis of the Netherlands
study of depression in older persons. J Affect Disord. 2015;185:1-7.
- 3. Sinnema H, Majo MC, Volker D, et al. Effectiveness of a tailored
implementation programme to improve recognition, diagnosis and
treatment of anxiety and depression in general practice: a cluster
randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2015;10:33.
- 4. Thomas C, Narahari SR, Bose KS, 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.
- 5. Mcardle R, Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, et al. The WHO-DAS II: measuring
outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults. Trends Amplif. 2005;9:127-
143.
- 6. Moen, VP, Drageset J, Eide GE, et al. Validation of World Health Organization
Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in
Norway. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:505-514.
- 7. Cheung MK, Hung AT, Poon PK, 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;37:1902-1907.
- 8. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J, et al. Validation of the “World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with
chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:51.
- 9. Chiu T, Yen C, Chou C, 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;35:2812-2820.
- 10. Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in
rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1521-1531.
- 11. Wolf A, Tate R, Lannin N, et al. The World Health Organization Disability
Assessment Scale, WHODAS II: reliability and validity in the measurement of
activity and participation in a spinal cord injury population. J Rehabil Med.
2012;44:747-755.
- 12. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Sozański B, et al.
Validation of the Polish version of the World Health Organization Disability
Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in an elderly population (60-70 years
old). Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24:386-394.
- 13. de Pedro-Cuesta J, Alberquilla Á, Virués-Ortega J, et al. ICF disability
measured by WHO-DAS II in three community diagnostic groups in Madrid, Spain. Gac Sanit. 2011;25 Suppl 2:21-28.
- 14. Almazán-Isla J, Comín-Comín M, Damián J, et al. Analysis of disability using
WHODAS 2.0 among the middle-aged and elderly in Cinco Villas, Spain.
Disabil Health J. 2014;7:78-87.
- 15. Wallis K, Sutton D, Bassett S. Sensory Modulation for People with Anxiety
in a Community Mental Health Setting. Occupational Therapy in Mental
Health, 34, 122-137.
- 16. Koorevaar A, Hegeman J, Lamers F, et al. Big Five personality characteristics
are associated with depression subtypes and symptom dimensions of
depression in older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32:e132-e140.
- 17. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Carella, F, et al. Impact of nonmotor symptoms on
disability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34:316-
320.
- 18. Wersebe H, Lieb R, Meyer AH, et al. Changes of valued behaviors and
functioning during an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Intervention.
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6;63-70.
- 19. Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino Ó, et al. Disability in bipolar I disorder: the
36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. J
Affect Disord. 2015;174:353-360.
- 20. Guilera G, Gómez-Benito J, Pino O, et al. Utility of the World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophr
Res. 2012;138:240-247.
- 21. Preminger JE, Ziegler CH. Can auditory and visual speech perception be
trained within a group setting? Am J Audiol. 2008;17:80-97.
- 22. Koumpouros Y, Papageorgiou E, Sakellari E, et al. Adaptation and
psychometric properties evaluation of the Greek version of WHODAS 2.0.
pilot application in Greek elderly population. Health Services and Outcomes
Research Methodology,18,63-74.
- 23. Sohn JH, Ahn SH, Seong SJ, et al. Prevalence, work-loss days and quality of
life of community dwelling subjects with depressive symptoms. J Korean
Med Sci. 2013;28:280-286.
- 24. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Covelli V, et al. Concordance between severity of
disease, prevalence of nonmotor symptoms, patient-reported quality of
life and disability and use of medication in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci.
2012;33:847-853.
- 25. Slim F, van Schie CH, Keukenkamp R, et al. Effects of impairments on
activities and participation in people affected by leprosy in The Netherlands.
J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:536-543.
- 26. Silveira C, Souza RT, Costa ML, 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. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141.
- 27. Fleming AR, Fairweather JS, Leahy MJ. Quality of Life As a Potential
Rehabilitation Service Outcome. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,57,9-22.
- 28. Santana GL, Coelho BM, Wang Y, et al. The epidemiology of personality
disorders in the Sao Paulo Megacity general population. PLoS One.
2018;13:e0195581.
- 29. Gore WL, Widiger TA. Negative emotionality across diagnostic models:
RDoC, DSM-5 Section III, and FFM. Personal Disord. 2018;9:155-164.
- 30. Schumm JA, Gore WL, Chard KM, et al. Examination of the World Health
Organization Disability Assessment System as a Measure of Disability
Severity Among Veterans Receiving Cognitive Processing Therapy. J Trauma
Stress. 2017;30:704-709.
- 31. Fewell LK, Levinson CA, Stark L. Depression, worry, and psychosocial
functioning predict eating disorder treatment outcomes in a residential and
partial hospitalization setting. Eat Weight Disord. 2017;22:291-301.
- 32. Alegría M, Ludman E, Kafali EN, et al. Effectiveness of the Engagement
and Counseling for Latinos (ECLA) intervention in low-income Latinos. Med
Care. 2014;52:989-997.
- 33. Hu L, Zang Y, Li N. The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 in adolescents in China.
J Clin Nurs. 2012;21:2438-451.
- 34. Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, et al. World Health Organisation Disability
Assessment Schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil
Rehabil. 2009;31:553-564.
- 35. Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, et al. WHODAS II with people after
stroke and their relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation, Disabil Rehabil.
2009;31:855-864.
- 36. Zhao HP, Liu Y, Li H, et al. 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 May;22:897-906.
- 37. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from
http://www.R-project.org.
- 38. Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M. Amelia II: A program for missing data.
Journal of Statistical Software. 45,1-47.
- 39. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX:
StataCorp LLC;2017.
- 40. Royston P, White I. Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE):
Implementation in Stata. Journal of Statistical Software;45.
- 41. Elhan AH., Oztuna D, Kutlay S, et al. An initial application of computerized
adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back
pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:166.
- 42. Kutlay S, Küçükdeveci AA, Elhan AH, et al. Validation of the World Health
Organization disability assessment schedule II (WHODAS-II) in patients with
osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31:339-346.
- 43. Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Yıldızlar D, et al. The reliability and validity of the
World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in
stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:214-220.