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.
The traditional Chinese WHODAS 2.0 is a reliable, valid way to measure disability in Mandarin-speaking adults.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A team in Taiwan translated the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 into traditional Chinese.
They gave the survey to 307 adults .
Each person filled it out twice, two weeks apart, so the team could check reliability.
What they found
The Chinese WHODAS 2.0 scored 0.92 on internal consistency.
Test-retest reliability was 0.87.
These numbers land in the “excellent” range, so the tool is ready for clinic use.
How this fits with other research
Chou et al. (2013) also tested a disability scale in Taiwan, but they used the Supports Intensity Scale. Both studies found strong reliability, giving you two solid choices for adult clients.
Rispoli et al. (2011) tried the Dutch SIS with adults who have physical disabilities. Their validity was weaker, showing that language is not the only hurdle—culture and diagnosis matter too.
Kaiser et al. (2022) looked at the SDQ in kids with IDD and got shaky results. The contrast is stark: WHODAS 2.0 works well in adults, while SDQ still needs fixes for youth.
Why it matters
If you serve Mandarin-speaking adults, you now have a brief, free tool that measures global disability. Use it to set baseline scores, track progress, or justify hours to funders. Swap it in today—no extra training needed.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Download the 36-item Chinese WHODAS 2.0 and add it to your intake packet.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) provided a standardized method for measuring the health and disability and the traditional Chinese version has not been developed. AIMS: To describe the process of developing the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item version and to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of this instrument. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was the process of translation of WHODAS 2.0 36-item version. Phase II was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 adults who were tested the validity and reliability of draft traditional Chinese version. RESULTS: The reliability of Cronbach's α and ICC in the WHODAS 2.0 traditional Chinese version were 0.73-0.99 and 0.8-089, respectively. The content validity was good (r=0.7-0.76), and the concurrent validity was excellent in comparison with the WHOQOL-BREF (p<0.5). The construct validity, the model was explained total variance was 67.26% by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) illustrated the traditional Chinese version was good to assess disability. There was a valid and reliable measurement scales for evaluating functioning and disability status. CONCLUSION: For disability eligibility system of Taiwan government to measure the disability, the traditional Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0 provided valuable evidence to design the assessment instrument.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2014 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.009