Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to investigate concurrent validity of the Swedish self-rated 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 by comparison with professional Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) ratings in psychiatric outpatients.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional convenience sample of 444 patients was recruited from their regular psychiatric outpatient settings. The patients filled out the WHODAS 2.0; their clinicians provided clinical information and performed GAF ratings blinded to the patients\' assessments. Analyses of correlations, variance components, and ROC curves were performed to investigate the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 through comparison with the GAF. The variance component analyses included working status, psychosocial problems, number of diagnostic groups, and remission status. GAF ratings were separated as total (GAF-T), symptoms (GAF-S), and functioning (GAF-F).
UNASSIGNED: There was significant correlation (p < 0.001) between WHODAS 2.0 total and domain scores and GAF-S, GAF-F, and GAF-T ratings. The correlations varied from r = 0.29 to r = 0.48, with the highest being between GAF-F rating and WHODAS 2.0 total score. Repeating the analyses for separate diagnostic groups replicated the findings, though not for psychotic, substance-related, and eating disorders. The WHODAS 2.0 showed good ability to distinguish impaired functioning below a fixed GAF-T cut-off of 70 (area under the curve: 0.74-0.78). The explained variance was lower for the WHODAS 2.0 than for the GAF (38.9% vs. 59.2%).
UNASSIGNED: Concurrent validity was found when comparing the Swedish self-administered 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 with the expert-rated GAF in psychiatric outpatients.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional convenience sample of 444 patients was recruited from their regular psychiatric outpatient settings. The patients filled out the WHODAS 2.0; their clinicians provided clinical information and performed GAF ratings blinded to the patients\' assessments. Analyses of correlations, variance components, and ROC curves were performed to investigate the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 through comparison with the GAF. The variance component analyses included working status, psychosocial problems, number of diagnostic groups, and remission status. GAF ratings were separated as total (GAF-T), symptoms (GAF-S), and functioning (GAF-F).
UNASSIGNED: There was significant correlation (p < 0.001) between WHODAS 2.0 total and domain scores and GAF-S, GAF-F, and GAF-T ratings. The correlations varied from r = 0.29 to r = 0.48, with the highest being between GAF-F rating and WHODAS 2.0 total score. Repeating the analyses for separate diagnostic groups replicated the findings, though not for psychotic, substance-related, and eating disorders. The WHODAS 2.0 showed good ability to distinguish impaired functioning below a fixed GAF-T cut-off of 70 (area under the curve: 0.74-0.78). The explained variance was lower for the WHODAS 2.0 than for the GAF (38.9% vs. 59.2%).
UNASSIGNED: Concurrent validity was found when comparing the Swedish self-administered 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0 with the expert-rated GAF in psychiatric outpatients.
摘要：
■这项研究的目的是通过与专业的全球功能评估（GAF）比较，调查瑞典自我评估的36项世界卫生组织残疾评估计划（WHODAS）2.0的同时有效性。精神病门诊患者。
■从常规精神科门诊中招募了444名患者的横断面便利样本。患者填写了WHODAS2.0；他们的临床医生提供了临床信息，并对患者的评估进行了GAF评分。相关性分析，方差分量，和ROC曲线通过与GAF的比较来研究WHODAS2.0的有效性。差异成分分析包括工作状态，社会心理问题,诊断组的数量，和缓解状态。GAF等级分离为总计(GAF-T)，症状（GAF-S），和功能（GAF-F）。
■WHODAS2.0总分和域得分与GAF-S之间存在显着相关性（p<0.001），GAF-F,和GAF-T评级。相关性从r=0.29到r=0.48不等，最高的是GAF-F评分和WHODAS2.0总分之间。重复对不同诊断组的分析重复了这些发现，虽然不是精神病患者，物质相关，和饮食失调。WHODAS2.0显示出在固定的GAF-T截止值70以下区分功能受损的良好能力（曲线下面积：0.74-0.78）。WHODAS2.0的解释方差低于GAF(38.9%vs.59.2%）。
■在精神病门诊患者中比较瑞典自行管理的36项WHODAS2.0版本与专家评估的GAF时，发现了并发有效性。
■从常规精神科门诊中招募了444名患者的横断面便利样本。患者填写了WHODAS2.0；他们的临床医生提供了临床信息，并对患者的评估进行了GAF评分。相关性分析，方差分量，和ROC曲线通过与GAF的比较来研究WHODAS2.0的有效性。差异成分分析包括工作状态，社会心理问题,诊断组的数量，和缓解状态。GAF等级分离为总计(GAF-T)，症状（GAF-S），和功能（GAF-F）。
■WHODAS2.0总分和域得分与GAF-S之间存在显着相关性（p<0.001），GAF-F,和GAF-T评级。相关性从r=0.29到r=0.48不等，最高的是GAF-F评分和WHODAS2.0总分之间。重复对不同诊断组的分析重复了这些发现，虽然不是精神病患者，物质相关，和饮食失调。WHODAS2.0显示出在固定的GAF-T截止值70以下区分功能受损的良好能力（曲线下面积：0.74-0.78）。WHODAS2.0的解释方差低于GAF(38.9%vs.59.2%）。
■在精神病门诊患者中比较瑞典自行管理的36项WHODAS2.0版本与专家评估的GAF时，发现了并发有效性。
