IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0303102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index

Author

Listed:
  • David William Evans

Abstract

Background: Disability is an important multifaceted construct. A brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire that promises a broader and more comparable measure of disability than disease-specific instruments does not currently exist. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate such a questionnaire: the Universal Disability Index (UDI). Methods: An online survey was used to collect general population data. Data were randomly divided into training and validation subsets. The dimensionality and structure of eight UDI questionnaire items were evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA, training subset) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, validation subset). To assess concurrent validity, the UDI summed score from the full dataset was compared to the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability scores. Internal consistency and discriminant validity were also assessed. Bootstrapping was used to evaluate model stability and generalisability. Results: 403 participants enrolled; 364 completed at least one UDI item. Three single-factor versions of the UDI were assessed (8-item, 7-item, and 6-item). All versions performed well during EFA and CFA (182 cases assigned to each), but none met the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) criterion (≤ 0.08). All versions of the UDI had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.90), were strongly correlated (Pearson’s r > 0.7) with both GARS and GCPS disability scores, indicating concurrent validity, and could accurately discriminate between upper and lower quartiles of these comparators. Confidence intervals of estimates were narrow, suggesting model stability and generalisability. Conclusions: A brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire was found to be valid and to possess good psychometric properties. The UDI has a single factor structure and either a 6-item, 7-item or 8-item version can be used to measure disability. For brevity and parsimony, the 6-item UDI is recommended, but further testing of all versions is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • David William Evans, 2024. "Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-25, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0303102
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303102
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303102&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0303102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kempen, G. I. J. M. & Miedema, I. & Ormel, J. & Molenaar, W., 1996. "The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(11), pages 1601-1610, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:plo:pctr00:0010002 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Anne H van Houwelingen & Wendy P J den Elzen & Saskia le Cessie & Jeanet W Blom & Jacobijn Gussekloo, 2015. "Consequences of Interaction of Functional, Somatic, Mental and Social Problems in Community-Dwelling Older People," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, April.
    3. Schroevers, Maya & Ranchor, Adelita V. & Sanderman, Robbert, 2006. "Adjustment to cancer in the 8 years following diagnosis: A longitudinal study comparing cancer survivors with healthy individuals," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 598-610, August.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0108666 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. van Bilsen, P.M.A. & Hamers, J.P.H. & Groot, W. & Spreeuwenberg, C., 2008. "The use of community-based social services by elderly people at risk of institutionalization: An evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 285-295, September.
    6. Roy G. Elbers & Kirsten I. de Oude & Theodore Kastanidis & Dederieke A. M. Maes-Festen & Alyt Oppewal, 2022. "The Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise Training on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Study Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Linda P. M. Op het Veld & Anna J. H. M. Beurskens & Henrica C. W. Vet & Sander M. J. Kuijk & KlaasJan Hajema & Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen & Erik Rossum, 2019. "The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 387-394, September.
    8. van Jaarsveld, Cornelia H.M. & Ranchor, Adelita V. & Sanderman, Robbert & Ormel, Johan & Kempen, Gertrudis I.J.M., 2005. "The role of premorbid psychological attributes in short- and long-term adjustment after cardiac disease. A prospective study in the elderly in The Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 1035-1045, March.
    9. Paolo Riccardo Brustio & Anna Mulasso & Samuel D’Emanuele & Gianluca Zia & Luca Feletti & Susanna Del Signore & Alberto Rainoldi, 2022. "Indoor Mobility, Frailty, and Disability in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Mediation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-11, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0303102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.