Kennedy, Epping-Jordan, Saxena, vonKorff, & Pull, 2010a ). This assessment is easy to use, score and interpret, is in the public domain, and is available in over thirty languages (Üstün et al., 2010b). The WHODAS 2.0 was published in 2010, and supersedes the WHODAS II (Üstün,
2010b); as the WHODAS 2.0 incorporates the International Classification of Functioning,
Disability, …show more content…
The main difference between the WHODAS 2.0 and the WHODAS II, is that the WHODAS 2.0 fully incorporates the ICF framework (Federici, Meloni, & Lo Presti, 2009). In addition, the
WHODAS 2.0 incorporates the ICF’s activity and participation domains, whereas the
WHODAS II did not (Federici et al., 2009). During the revision process of the WHODAS II, the international collaborative researchers focused on cross-cultural application of the assessment, as well as focused on how to improve the validity and reliability of the measure (Üstün et al.,
2010a). In order to effectively transform the WHODAS II into the WHODAS 2.0, the WHO initiated a series of application studies across 19 countries in the world. Trained interviewers applied the WHODAS 2.0 to individuals from the general population, and the results were compared in order to determine if the assessment more effectively measured disability and an individual’s health status (Üstün et al., 2010a). After reviewing the results from this cross- cultural study, the researchers found that the WHODAS 2.0 had good concurrent validity and high internal consistency, compared to the WHODAS II (Garin et al., 2010). Therefore, in