WHODAS 2.0: Manual, Data, Research & Practice

This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of the WHODAS 2.0, including its manual, scoring methods, statistical foundations, and practical applications. Participants will gain insight into the research supporting its validity and reliability, as well as its usability in diverse clinical and research settings. Emphasis will be placed on interpreting results, applying disability scores to individual cases, and understanding how WHODAS 2.0 informs determinations of practice. By the end, attendees will have a clearer understanding of how to incorporate WHODAS 2.0 into assessment, treatment planning, and outcome measurement to enhance clinical decision-making and client care.

1. WHODAS 2.0
http://www.who.int/whodas
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/icf/whodas/36item-scoring-template-
complex-scoring.xlsx%3Fsfvrsn%3Dde1228b3_2&ved=2ahUKEwi18Jb_xYSIAxV_ADQIHdBDKXkQFnoECDkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1RXDJexOmOGc3OW3XAGwXf

2. ORGANIZATION
Intro “what is it”
History
Interview skills vs.
Useability & Tech
•DELIVERY
GAF and WHODAS
2.0
DSM
IRT and Computer
adaptive testing
(CAT)
Useability
Internal tech and
formulation
Statistics
TEST and QMHP
PART I: BACKGROUND
PART II: ADMINISTER & SCORING
PART III: VERSIONS

3. ORGANIZATION
•PART I: BACKGROUND
•Pg 1-31
•PART II: ADMINISTER & SCORING
•Pg 32-83
•PART III: VERSIONS
•Pg 83-100

4. INSTITUTIONS
INVOLVED
•WHO
•Project on Assessment and
Classification of Human
Functioning, Disability Health
•100 countries
•International collaboration
•International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health
(ICF) 4.

5. WHODA WHAT?
•WHODAS 2.0 is the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, a standardized
tool designed to measure health and disability across different cultures and conditions by assessing
functioning in six key life domains.
•Measure of disability (Rating). Disability weight using IRT.
•It has very high ICC (Intraclass coefficient) of .98/1 – at overall level (item to domain)
9.
•Took 10 years to create- research
•Researched in 100 countries
•Very high Cronbach’s alpha reliability between subscales responsive unidimensionality
•It replaces the GAF in DSM
•Can be used to replace ICF checklist
•High usability with symptom severity measures (DSM-5-TR CXM Level 1 and 2)
•Item, stats, score, usability insights
•Variance explained by first general factors “getting along 62%”
•In this case, 62% variance explained by the ‘Getting Along’ factor means that this domain (which measures interpersonal interactions and social
relationships) accounts for a large majority of the differences seen in those items. High internal consistently and construct validity

6. What is it
and Why is
it?
•The manual is aimed at public health professionals, doctors,
other health professionals
•(e.g. rehabilitation professionals, physical therapists and
occupational therapists),
•health-policy planners,
•social scientists and other individuals involved in studies on
disability and health.
• It may be of particular interest to general health workers,
but also to psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists and
addiction health workers, because it places mental health and
addiction problems on an equal basis with other areas of
general health (WHO, 2024).

7. WHODAS
2.0
•The task force chose a broad range of instrument to validate
this instrument including:
•Measures of disability
•Measures of handicap
•Measures of quality of life
•Other health status measures (e.g., activities of daily living,
instrumental activities of daily living, global or specific measures,
subjective well-being, quality of life) clinical global impression,
Hamilton depr. Rating scale, ICF checklist.
•Approximately 300 instruments were reviewed, showing
diversity in:
•Theoretical framework
•Terminology
•Constructs measured – unidimensionality of disability
•Assessment strategy
•Focus of valuation
•Assessment goals
•From this diversity, it was possible to:
•Refine a common pool of “items” (core domains of functioning
and disability)
•Link to the ICF (pg. 12)

8. WHODAS 5 Quality of Life
COGNITION –
UNDERSTANDING AND
COMMUNICATING
MOBILITY – MOVING AND
GETTING AROUND
SELF-CARE – ATTENDING
TO ONE’S HYGIENE,
DRESSING, EATING AND
STAYING ALONE
GETTING ALONG –
INTERACTING WITH
OTHER PEOPLE
LIFE ACTIVITIES –
DOMESTIC
RESPONSIBILITIES,
LEISURE, WORK AND
SCHOOL
PARTICIPATION –
JOINING IN COMMUNITY
ACTIVITIES,
PARTICIPATING IN
SOCIETY.

9. 2.0
The World Health Organization Disability
Assessment Schedule, Version 2.0
(WHODAS 2.0) assesses a patient’s ability
to perform activities in six areas:

10. 1. Cognition
(Understanding
and
Communicating)
Evaluates how well an individual
is able to think, concentrate,
remember, and communicate.
Difficulties with memory,
problem-solving, learning new
tasks, understanding what people
say, and expressing oneself
effectively.

11. 2.
Mobility
(Getting
Around)
Mobility looks at the person’s
ability to move and physically
navigate their environment.
Standing for long periods, walking
long or short distances, climbing
stairs, and moving around inside
or outside the home.

12. 3. Self-
care
This section measures a
person’s ability to care for
themselves in basic daily
tasks.
Washing, dressing, eating,
and staying by oneself
without difficulty.

13. 4.
Getting
Along
with
People
This domain examines
interpersonal functioning,
including the ability to initiate and
maintain interactions and
relationships with others.
It looks at challenges in dealing
with people in the household,
maintaining friendships, making
new acquaintances, and getting
along with strangers or colleagues.

14. 5. Life
Activities
(Household
and
Work/School)
Participation in routine daily
responsibilities, such as
household chores, work, or
school tasks.
This section is divided into two parts: one for
household activities (like cleaning, cooking, and
managing finances) and one for major life roles
(such as working a job or pursuing education).
DSM-5 field trials – “recommended to calculate and use the
average scores of each domain and for general disability

15. 6.
Participation
(Society and
Community
Involvement)
Participation refers to involvement in
broader aspects of life, including
social activities, community life, and
the ability to join in societal roles.
It measures difficulties due to barriers
like discrimination, lack of
accessibility, emotional distress, or
stigma.
SUD AUD scored significantly worse
than other groups on this subscale

16. 4 DETERMINATIONS IN PRACTICE
•DIAGNOSTICS/DIAGNOSIS
•DISABILITY RATING
•TREATMENT DETERMINATION/TX PLANNING
•PATIENT OUTCOME

17. Levels of Functioning – International Class. Of
Functioning (ICF) Disability and Health (~90+ minutes)
•Body functions and structures Impairments.
•Activities Activity limitations
•Participation Participation Restrictions
Parallel level of disLevel of Functioning

18. Test Retest
Reliability
Cognition = .94
Mobility = .96
Self Care = .95
Getting along = .93
Life activities = .94
Household = .94
Participation = .95
Test-retest reliability had
intraclass coefficient (ICC) of
- .69-.89 at item level;
- .93-.96 at domain level
-.98 at overall level
-ICC -0-1 How strong
measurements in the same
group resemble each other
Internal consistencies used
Cronbach’s alphas (measure of
how well a set of variable or
items measures a single,
unidimensional latent construct
[disability]).

19. Important learning points
•Several forms
•Interviewing techniques are important – Reading from the manual is required if
“patient questions meaning” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63nUR1hy20&pp=ygULd2hvZGFzIDIuMCA%3D
•Use flashcards
•Be familiar with the screening – visual analogue scale
•Percentage scores must be calculated and norm scores come first
•Not normed on patients below 12 years, yet only recommended for patients 18+
•Never prompt or recommend to patients
•Use statistical education and insights in using the measure and writing reports
•Computer versions (computerized adaptive testing)
•Some EHRs, R, SAS
•SPSS
•Psychiatry.org (request from WHODAS 2.0 website)
•WHODAS 2.0 excel

20. How to Access the iShell Version
Permission Is Required
This computerized version (iShell) is controlled and not publicly downloadable. You must
obtain permission from the WHO to use it. ResearchGateHeartbeat Medical
Request Access
You can request access or licensing through WHO by:
Visiting the official WHO WHODAS 2.0 web pages
Access may require specifying your intended use—research, clinical
implementation, or data capture—and agreeing to licensing terms.
Components
Version WHODAS 2.0, 12+24 item (computer-assisted: iShell)
How to Access
Request permission and license from WHO, contact Dr. Üstün or
WHO site
Alternative (Non-computer) Paper/PDF interviewer-administered form available
Other Versions Available
12-item (SF) or 36-item self/administered or proxy versions with
simpler access
Summary Table

21. WHODAS 2.0
Manual
•https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/measuring-health-and-disability-manual-for-who-disability-
assessment-schedule-(-whodas-2.0)
•WHO – World Health Organization – research in 100 countries
•ICF – International Classification of functioning disability and Health.
•ICF is the WHO framework for measuring health and disability at both individual and population levels.
•WHODAS 2.0 is the “direct link to the ICF”
•2.0 – Fully and applies to all diseases

22. Flashcard 1:
Health conditions include:
• Disease or illness
• Injury
• Mental or emotional problems
• Problems with alcohol or drugs
“Difficulty with an activity” means:
• Increased effort needed
• Pain or discomfort
• Slowness
• Changes in how the activity is done
Think about these difficulties over the past 30 days only
WHODAS 2.0

23. Flashcard 1:
WHODAS 2.0
1 --------- 2 -----------3 ---------- 4 ------------------ 5
None Mild Moderate Severe Extreme or Cannot Do

24. Learning Points
Calculates –
•“Disability weight” – numerical value assigned
different health states to quantify impact of
disability
•Visual analogue scale – face validity measures
intensity of subjective experience.

25. WHODAS
2.0
Primary Applications and Design Settings
This model has been primarily developed and applied in the
following three key domains:
Mental Health
Medical: Neurological Health & Physical Functioning
Substance Use and Abuse
WHODAS 2.0 has been supported and validated through field studies.
WHODAS 2.0 shows to be familiarly associated and used alongside DSM Cross Cutting Symptom Measures for diagnostic
evidence of disability and diagnosis/prognostics.

26. WHY ADD TO
MY PRACTICE
Cross Cultural Applicability

27. Diagnosis
Service Needs
Level
of
care
Outcome of the
condition
Length of
hospitlization
Work
performance
and
accomodations
Recepit
of
disability
benefits
Social
integration

28. Disability
Identify Needs
Match tx and
interventions
Formative
evaluation
Allocating
resources
Possible outcomes or
prognosis
Setting
Priorities
, what
needs and
what
accommodat
ions

29. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination
•Measures (FV)
•36 item Self Administered
•36 item Interviewer Administered
•36 item Proxy Administered
•(i.e. family, friend or carer)
•Measures (SF)
•12 item Self Administered
•12 item Interviewer Administered
•12 item Proxy Administered
•Measure (IRT) Item Response Theory or “Skip Logic”
•12+24 item version (Computer adaptive testing)
•12+24 item version (Interview)
•Computer Assisted (CA)
•36 item Self Adminstered
•36 item Proxy Adminstered
•36 item Interviewer Administered
The average scores are comparable to the WHODAS 5-point scale, which allows the clinician to think of the individual's disability in terms of:
none (0-0.49), mild (0.5-1.49), moderate (1.5-2.49), severe (2.5-3.49), or extreme (3.5-4).
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that
about 1.3 billion people worldwide have a significant
disability, representing approximately 16% of the global
population (WHO, n.d.)
Majority report no to mild disability range, with average standardized scores typically between 5–10 out of 100 or “14-17 on 12 –item
or “43-50” on 36 item.

30. Keys to
Interoperation
and Delivery
(Use Manual)
•Assessment
•Identify and properly use interviewer instructions located throughout WHODAS 2.0;
•know the meaning of different typefaces (blue; bold and italics; underlined), parentheses (brackets)
and square brackets
•Know when this measure is needed for evidence and identification, impairment or measurement.
•Know what the measure is measuring
•Formulas
•“Complex Formula” feature
•State the six points respondents should take into consideration while answering the WHODAS 2.0
questions
•Item Response Theory (IRT)
•Distinguish between “Extreme or cannot do” and “Not applicable” answers –
a respondent has spinal cord injury and is unable to wash her body n her own. She has the help of a personal assistant
and has no difficulty washing her body with assistant. Difficulty coded as “”extreme or cannot do” or “none [no
disability].” = Latter
•Interviewing
•Key features of good interviewing technique; •
• List the key points to review during an interview introduction, page
•State two reasons for giving respondents feedback during the interview
•Glossary
•Structure of Interview is written in 36 item paper

31. HX
•Global Assessment of functioning was a system of scoring the
severity of impairment and presenting state of a patient.
•This dates back to a “scale developed/used in 1980s” to identify
severity of psychiatric illness.
•Introduced in DSM-III-Revised in 1987
•Used in DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR
•Ended in 2013 with DSM-5. No longer used (Discussion)
Replaced by WHODAS 2.0
•The scale attached (next page). This evolved over time.

32. Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
1952
DSM-I → 1952
1968
DSM-II → 1968
1980
DSM-III → 1980
Health–Sickness Rating
Scale (HSRS)DSM-III
(1980)
a 100-point scale
developed by Luborsky in
1962 to assess a patient's
overall mental health and
functioning.
1987
DSM-III-R (Revised) → 1987
GAF
1994
DSM-IV → 1994
2000
DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision) →
2000
2013
DSM-5 → 2013
WHODAS 2.0
2022
DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) →
2022
Recognition of Mental Disorders as Disability (Late 1960s - 1970s):
Mental health conditions began to be recognized as legitimate disabilities eligible for SSDI benefits during this period. The Social
Security Administration (SSA) started to develop criteria for evaluating mental impairments.

33. GAF VS.
WHODAS 2.0 (12
item, IRT, 36-Item)
Both
Global assessment of Functioning
Featured in DSM
Can indicate % of Disability
Used in conjunction with DSM Measures
Free
Clinical Measure
Holistic Focus
GAF
Short (clinician rated)
Easy to read
Definitive and essential
Used from 1964-2013
Modifier to patient interviews,
assessment, evaluation
Can deliver every session (Whodas 2.0
must be delivered Q/30days)
Takes less than a minute (WHODAS
2.0 can take 30 minutes)
Saves time, easy to read, progress and
state of disability can be obvious
WHODAS
2.0
Extremely high reliability
Short form extremely high reliability and
validity
Internationally proven valid
Takes up to 30 minutes
Extensively Researched (GAF many argued
not researched)
Not needed to be adapted outside of area
(GAF needed adaptations)
Generic/Complex Scoring Method
Mental, neurological, substance abuse
Assists Multidisciplinary assessment and
case conceptualization
6 areas - assess each approx. 5.5 times

34. GAF
A number of treatment facilities are routinely
collecting outcome measures as part of
performance measurement ( 5 ), and there is
accumulating evidence that the GAF is an
appropriate measure of outcomes for
assessing overall change within a facility ( 15,
16 ). Given the GAF's increased use in
treatment planning and as a performance
measure of care, it is even more important
that the GAF be useful.
Clinically, it would be helpful to have a measure of global
illness severity for tracking clinical progress, but in
practice, it is our experience that clinicians often do not
make good use of the GAF because of its many
shortcomings. One major limitation of the GAF is that it
combines three domains of functioning—occupational,
social, and psychological—which do not always vary
together ( 5 ).
Niv, Cohen,Sullivan,
& Young, A. S. , 2007,
p. 523-523

35. GAF MIRECC
•Conclusions: The three MIRECC GAF
subscales can be scored reliably, and they
have good concurrent and predictive
validity. Further work is needed on brief
measures of patient functioning,
especially measures of social functioning.
(Psychiatric Services 58:529–535, 2007)
•1. Occupational
•2. Social
•3. Symptoms
Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, 2007

36. WHODAS 2.0
Clarifying
Flaws in GAF
The same principle holds for different interviewers.
If one interviewer is friendly to participants and another is
distant, then participants may give different types of
responses.
Clear training in standardized procedures helps to prevent
these possibilities/discrepancies.
Past 30-days
Past Month, Past 6 months, Past treatment schedule and Past year
reviewed/reassessed

37. Version Items Score # (Raw) Raw Score Range Formula for % DisabilityExample Calculation
12-Item 12 28 12 – 60
(Score−12)÷(60−12)[48]×
100(\text{Score} - 12)
\div (60 - 12) \times 100
(28−12)÷48×100=33.3%(28
-12) ÷ 48 × 100 = 33.3\%
36-Item 36 90 36 – 180
(Score−36)÷(180−36)[144]
×100(\text{Score} - 36) \div
(180 - 36) \times 100
(90−36)÷144×100=37.5%(9
0-36) ÷ 144 × 100 = 37.5\%
WHODAS to GAF
Disability Rating
= #-Min / Max-min X 100 = % Disability
33% Disability = 12 item: 28

33% Disability = 36 item: 84

38. Converting the WHODAS to a GAF-disability assessment
Interpret
Raw Score
Sum Score
(0–48)
Functional Difficulty Level
0–12 None to Mild
13–25 Mild to Moderate
26–36 Moderate to High
37–48 Severe
Response OptionMeaning
1 None
2 Mild
3 Moderate
4 Severe
5 Extreme or Cannot Do
Version Items
Max per
Item
Max ScoreMin Score
12-Item
Version
12 5 12 × 5 = 60 12 × 1 = 12

39. Converting the WHODAS to “a” GAF-disability assessment
Interpret
Raw Score
(0–144)
Functional Difficulty Level
36 None to Mild
36-72 Mild to Moderate
73-108 Moderate to High
109-144 Severe
Response Option Meaning
1 None
2 Mild
3 Moderate
4 Severe
5 Extreme or Cannot Do
Version Items
Max per
Item
Max ScoreMin Score
36-Item
Version
36 5 36 × 5 = 18036 × 1 = 36

40. Report Writing
The client’s WHODAS 2.0 score was 28 out of 60, representing a 33% overall
disability, which falls within the moderate disability range.
WHODAS 2.0 scores are intended to reflect the individual’s current level of
functioning and may change over time, rather than being directly compared to
population norms. The patient was measured as reported within the last 30
days.
Domain-specific results indicate a substantial disability in “caring for oneself”
and a moderate disability in “participation in society.” These scores provide a
weighted view of the client’s overall functioning and areas of difficulty.

41. RECOMMENDED
DELIVERY
•Training in delivery is defined in
manual
•Design and stats support delivery with
each patient identically (naming faults
with GAF)
•Monthly (CBT) and yearly (ND)
•Initial, assessment, summative and
formative evaluations.
•Interview, Proxy, vs. Self Report
•Version long-term eval. Vs. short term
assessments

42. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination
•WHODAS 2.0 medicaid policy procedure training 1901i
•Medicaid 1901i [ND] (up to 50% reaches disability rating at state level)
•WHODAS Manual (print and online)
•Trained “qualified practitioner “independent agent providing verification
of completion of WHODAS User Agreement and associated training on
administration and scoring of the WHODAS 2.0 [on WHO website].
•WHODAS 2.0 Training Part I and Part II
•GAF taken from Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center
(MIRECC)
•VA Disability determination of Posttraumatic stress disorder ~32% above
•“No formal certification available to administer.”
•Manual is designed as “Training manual” ------------------->
•Measure Information Form and Instructions

43. SCORES
•WHODAS 2.0 aims to reflect the key features of the ICF (International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health). It has been designed to assess
the limitations on activity and restrictions on participation
experienced by an individual, irrespective of medical diagnosis.
•Known as 32% VA may identify as “significant” for purpose of Disability claims
•Which area is disability highest – resource, access, benefit determination
•In North Dakota, the WHODAS 2.0 must be completed each 365 days for “benefit determination”
•Eligibility for the 1915i:
•Overall Complex score of 50 or above (50+) is required

44. Report Writing

45. Report Writing

46. Report Writing

47. Reporting

49. Complex scoring – Percentage “weight disability.”
CONVERSION KIT
OR
COMPLEX SCORING
Raw score on WHODAS 2.0 to Percentage Disability
Rating

50. STAT
INSIGHTS
01
Item, Subscale, Construct Reliability – Ratio of
variance to the total variance.
02 Cross cultural applicability
03
Field studies – reliability and validity –
Gen pop., Pop. Physical prob., pop. with
mental or emotional prob., Pop. With prob. w/
SUD or AUD.
04 Concurrent validity
05 Responsiveness Models -Rasch Scale – Item
difficulty vs. item discrimination PG 19

51. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination

52. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination 12-item
A) Simple Scoring (Raw Total) Standardized Scoring
•12–20: Little to no disability
•21–30: Mild disability
•31–40: Moderate disability
•41–48: Severe disability
•49–60: Extreme disability
(Note: These are approximate thresholds; interpretation should consider clinical context, version
being used, and norms for the population)
B) Complex Formula Scoring (0–100 Scale)
Disability Weight
To make the score easier to interpret and comparable to other WHODAS forms:
The average scores are comparable to the WHODAS 5-point scale, which allows the clinician to think of the individual's disability in terms of:
none (1-1.49), mild (1.5-2.49), moderate (2.5-3.49), severe (3.5-4.49), or extreme (4.5-5.0).

53. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination 36-item
The average scores are comparable to the WHODAS 5-point scale, which allows the clinician to think of the individual's disability in terms of:
none (1-1.49), mild (1.5-2.49), moderate (2.5-3.49), severe (3.5-4.49), or extreme (4.5-5.0).
B) Complex Formula Scoring (0–100 Scale)
Disability Weight
To make the score easier to interpret and comparable to other WHODAS forms:
Raw Total Score Disability Level
36–59 Little to no disability
60–89 Mild disability
90–119 Moderate disability
120–149 Severe disability
150–180 Extreme disability

54. WHODAS
2.0
For Disability
Determination
WHODAS 2.0 Score Interpretation

55. DELIVERY
INTERVIEW
•Identify key features of good interviewing technique;
•list the key points to review during an interview introduction; and
•state two reasons for giving respondents feedback during the
interview
•Make a good introduction A good introduction to an interview is
essential. It communicates the goals of the interview and sets the
tone of the interaction. Be sure to make clear in your introduction:
•Your name and professional affiliation;
•That you are a professional interviewer or clinician; • that you
represent a legitimate and reputable organization;
•That the questionnaire is for gathering information for important,
worthwhile research;
•That the respondent’s participation is vital to the success of the
research; and
•That responses will be kept confidential to the extent provided for
by law or by site-specific regulations

56. DELIVERY
INTERVIEW
•Anything written in standard print in blue is meant to be read to the
respondent.
• Anything written in bold and italics is an interviewer instruction and
should not be read aloud.
•[Square brackets]-instruction to translate (e.g. miles to km).
•Underlined – Keywords and phrases to emphasizez
•(Parenthesis) – Used to illustrate a point; ie. Read to respondent
Interviewer instructions:
Any writing utensil is acceptable

57. 9.2 TYPOGRAPHICAL
CONVENTION •Read questions as they are written.

58. 9.2 TYPOGRAPHICAL
CONVENTION
•2. Read the entire question
•3. Use Lead in Phrases (with each
question)
•4. Use Flashcards when instructed
•9.5 Rules for clarification and
probing

59. 9.2 TYPOGRAPHICAL
CONVENTION
•Read questions as they are written.
•Use valid and reliable interview
skills
•Do not answer questions
•Follow code on print versions
•Follow manual

60. Quick Fact
•Although psychological evaluation has become standard
for most surgery programs (including bariatric), no clear
guidelines exist about what that assessment must involve
(Snyder, 2009).

61. FAQ
https: //www. who. int/sta nda rds/cla ssifica tions/interna tiona l-cla ssifica tion-of-functioning -
disa bility -a nd-hea lth/who-disa bility -a ssessment-schedule
Can the patient take this alone, as a
screening?
Where do you access the WHODAS
2.0
What score qualifies the patient as
disabled?
Which is best?
When is N/A used instead of 0?
Is the WHODAS 2.0 an adequate
replacement for the GAF?
Yes, with some training or
disclaimers and directions attached.
https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-
disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule
Scores range from 32% to 50%
disabled. –Please attend to each
domain.
Use complex scoring, data is
formulated.
Utilize Complex scoring and IRT method carefully and identify
when formula accounts for 0% when indeed disability is N/A
It is much more time consuming and entire measure must be
done at times excluding clinical judgment. Yet statistical
formulations and field studies indicate this measure having
more technological applications and much higher reliability.
Each domain can be assessed and compared differently.
Can be used still to identify improvements to a more specific
degree from treatment.

62. •Diseases Assessed/Identified – neurological, mental, and addiction medicine
•Use – Usability is nearly universal in these domains and may assist diagnostics
and recovery assessments.
•Administration Method – Self report, proxy, CAT, Interviewer reported, Interview
•Time to administer (12-item to 10 minutes, 36-item to 20 minutes)
•Break Down – 6 domains of separate yet connected functioning.
•Reliability – High
•Validity – Extremely high with domains of assessment, related to disability in
subordinate of diseases assessed. Impairment body functions and structures
overall, a discussion for future WHODAS (WHO, 2024, p. 31).
•Compared well with other measures of disability
•Cross culturally meaningful and valid
•Strengths
•EBP
NOTES ON
STATS

63. ACCESS
APA_D SM 5_W H OD AS-2-Self-Ad mi n ist ere d .p d f
Psychiatry.org
WHODAS 2.0 Dom ain Scores: WHODAS 2.0 produces dom ain-specific scores for six different functioning dom ains: cognition, m obility, self-care, getting along...
5 pages Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | CMS (.gov) https://www.cm s.gov › files › whodas-20-instrument by DA SCHEDULE · Cited by 1 — This questionnaire asks about difficulties due to health conditions. Health conditions include diseases or illnesses, other health problem s that m ay be...
APA_DSM5_WHODAS -2-Self-Administered.pdf
WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)
The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment ...
NovoPsych
https://novopsych.com.au › assessments › health › the-...
WHODAS 2.0 is a practical, generic assessment instrument that can measure health and disability at population
level or in clinical practice.
MEASURE ACCESS

64. MANUAL, FAMILIARITY,
USE & QUIZ
•TEST

65. RESEARCH ON USE
Pg. 29
•TEST

66. REFERENCE
S
Niv, N., Cohen, A. N., Sullivan, G., & Young, A. S. (2007). The
MIRECC Version of the Global Assessment of Functioning
Scale: Reliability and Validity. Psychiatric Services, 58(4),
529–535. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.4.529
Snyder, A., PhD. (2009). Psychological Assessment Of the
Patient Undergoing Bariatric Surgery. The Ochsner Jounral
Fall; 9(3): 144-148. Retrieved 08/29/2024 from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096263/
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/ps.2007.58.4.
529
Your OT Tutor. (2023). 3 FAQs about the WHODAS 2.0. Video Blog. Retrieved 09/17/2024
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9chA-IxLw
American Psychiatric Association.

67. REFERENCE
S
Snyder, A. (2009) Psychological Assessment of the Patient
Undergoing Bariatric Surgery. The Ochsner Journal 9:144-148.
Retrieved 09/19/2024 from
https://www.ochsnerjournal.org/content/ochjnl/9/3/144.full.pdf
#:~:text=Although%20no%20standard%20of%20best%20practi
ce%20yet%20exists,two%20parts%3A%20a%20clinical%20int
erview%20and%20psychological%20testing.
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. (n.d.-
a). Rasch modeling. In Population Health Methods. Columbia
University Mailman School of Public Health. Retrieved August
26, 2025, from
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-
health-methods/rasch-modeling

68. MISSING