Field-testing of the rapid assessment of disability questionnaire

BMC Public Health

Jill E Keeffe¹  Anaseini Cama⁵  Nafisa Lira Huq⁷  Tanya J Edmonds²  Beth Sprunt²  Sally M Baker²  Kathy Fotis⁴  Alexandra Devine²  Fakir M Amirul Islam⁶  Lucy Busija³  Manjula Marella⁴ 

[1] L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India;Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Level 4, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Carlton, VIC 3010, Australia;Deakin Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, Western Pacific Region, Pacific Secretariat, Suva, Fiji;Department of Statistics, Data Science and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;Centre for Reproductive Health, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh

关键词: Inclusive development;    Questionnaire;    Validation;    Rapid assessment;    Disability;   

Others  :  1128085
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-900

 received in 2014-01-07, accepted in 2014-08-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Rapid Assessment of Disability (RAD) questionnaire measures the magnitude and impact of disability and aims to inform the design of disability inclusive development programs. This paper reports the psychometric evaluation of the RAD.

Methods

The initial version of the RAD comprised five sections: 1) demographics, 2) functioning, 3) rights awareness, 4) well-being, and 5) access to the community. Item functioning and construct validity were assessed in a population-based study in Bangladesh. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (sections 2 and 5) and Rasch modelling (sections 3 and 4). A subsequent case–control study in Fiji tested the refined questionnaire in a cross-cultural setting and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the RAD section 2 to identify people with disability.

Results

2,057 adults took part in the study (1,855 in Bangladesh and 202 in Fiji). The prevalence of disability estimated using RAD section 2 in Bangladesh was 10.5% (95% CI 8.8-12.2), with satisfactory sensitivity and specificity (62.4% and 81.2%, respectively). Section 3 exhibited multidimensionality and poor differentiation between levels of rights awareness in both Bangladesh (person separation index [PSI] = 0.71) and Fiji (PSI = 0.0), and was unable to distinguish between people with and without disability (Bangladesh p = 0.786, Fiji p = 0.403). This section was subsequently removed from the questionnaire pending re-development. Section 4 had good ability to differentiate between levels of well-being (PSI = 0.82). In both countries, people with disability had significantly worse well-being scores than people without disability (p < 0.001) and also access to all sectors of community except legal assistance, drinking water and toilets (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Filed-testing in Bangladesh and Fiji confirmed the psychometric robustness of functioning, well-being, and community access sections of the RAD. Information from the questionnaire can be used to inform and evaluate disability inclusive development programs.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Marella et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization: World Bank: World Report on Disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.
• [2]Nations U: Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Geneva: United Nations; 2006.
• [3]Braithwaite J, Mont D: Disability and poverty: a survey of World Bank poverty assessments and implications. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap 2009, 3(3):219-232.
• [4]Mont D: Measuring disability prevalence (SP Discussion Paper No. 0706). Washington: World Bank; 2007.
• [5]Madans JH, Loeb ME, Altman BM: Measuring disability and monitoring the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: the work of the Washington group on disability statistics. BMC Public Health 2011, 11(Suppl 4):S4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Palmer M, Harley D: Models and measurement in disability: an international review. Health Policy Plann 2012, 27(5):357-364.
• [7]Trani J-F, Bakhshi P: Challenges for assessing disability prevalence: the case of Afghanistan. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap 2008, 2(1):44-64.
• [8]World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
• [9]Sen A: Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
• [10]Goujon N, Devine A, Baker SM, Sprunt B, Edmonds TJ, Booth JK, Keeffe JE: A comparative review of measurement instruments to inform and evaluate effectiveness of disability inclusive development. Disabil Rehabil 2014, 36(10):804-812.
• [11]CBM: Inclusion made easy: a quick program guide to disability in development. 2012.
• [12]Huq NL, Edmonds T, Baker S, Busija L, Devine A, Fotis K, Marella M, Goujon N, Keeffe JE: The rapid assessment of disability – informing the development of an instrument to measure the effectiveness of disability inclusive development through a qualitative study in Bangladesh. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development 2013, 24(3):37-60.
• [13]Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM: Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med 2002, 32(6):959-976.
• [14]Understanding and interpreting disability as measured using the Washigton group short Set of questions http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/washington_group/meeting8/interpreting_disability.pdf webcite
• [15]Kuper H, Polack S, Limburg H: Rapid assessment of avoidable blindness. Community Eye Health 2006, 19(60):68-69.
• [16]Fiji National Council for Disabled Persons: A national policy on persons living with disabilities 2008 – 2018. 2008.
• [17]Filmer D, Pritchett LH: Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data - or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography 2001, 38(1):115-132.
• [18]Vyas S, Kumaranayake L: Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan 2006, 21(6):459-468.
• [19]Andrich D: A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-573.
• [20]Wright B, Masters G: Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA Press; 1982.
• [21]Linacre JM, Wright BD: A User’s Guide to Winsteps Rasch-Model Computer Program. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 2001.
• [22]Linacre JM: Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002, 3(1):85-106.
• [23]Linacre JM: Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best? J Outcome Meas 1998, 2(3):266-283.
• [24]Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, Elliott DB: The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2007, 84(8):663-674.
• [25]Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2010. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning; 2011.
• [26]Bickenbach JE: Monitoring the United Nation’s convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: data and the International Classification of Functioning. Disability and Health. BMC Public Health 2011, 11(Suppl 4):S8. BioMed Central Full Text