medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3325 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz

2024, Number 3

<< Back

Salud Mental 2024; 47 (3)

Comparing the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in children and adolescents

de la Peña FR, Escalona MP, Ulloa Palacios-Cruz L, Palacio JD, Mayer P, Diaz R, Rosetti MF

Language: English
References: 32
Page: 137-143
PDF size: 166.38 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. The DSM-5 replaced the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Questionnaire (WHODAS) 2.0 as a measure of functioning because of the shortcomings of the former. However, further evidence of how GAF and WHODAS 2.0 scores are correlated and how both instruments are associated with sociodemographic and clinical variables. particularly in children and adolescents, is required to support this change. Objective. To correlate GAF and WHODAS 2.0 scores in a sample of children and adolescents, and to determine which sociodemographic and clinical variables are associated with the scores of each instrument. Method. Using reports obtained from a secondary database analysis of a cross-sectional, multicentric study, we calculated the correlation between WHODAS 2.0 and GAF scores in a clinical sample of children and performed a general linear model analysis to evaluate the association between the sociodemographic and clinical variables with functioning scores. Results. Sixty-six participants completed the evaluation. The correlation between WHODAS 2.0 and GAF (r = -.69, 95% CI = [-.82, -.49], p ‹ .001) was moderate to large and significant. Only poor peer relationships and a higher number of diagnoses were significantly associated with low functioning in both instruments. The results suggest that WHODAS 2.0 and GAF scores reflect different aspects of functioning and disability. Discussion and conclusion. Both instruments can provide an accurate assessment of disability/functionality. We propose that, for pediatric cases, WHODAS could provide more information on the self-care domain


REFERENCES

  1. Aas, I. H., (2011). Guidelines for rating global assessment of functioning (GAF).Annals of General Psychiatry, 10(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1186/1744-859X-10-2

  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual: mentaldisorders (3rd Ed). American Psychiatric Association.

  3. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual: mentaldisorders: DSM-III-R (3rd Ed, revised). American Psychiatric Association.

  4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual: mentaldisorders: DSM-5™ (5th Ed). American Psychiatric Association.

  5. Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2018). All for one and one for all: Mental disorders inone dimension. American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(9), 831-844. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17121383

  6. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H.,Israel, S., Meier, M. H., Ramrakha, S., Shalev, I., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T.E. (2014). The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structureof psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119-137. doi:10.1177/2167702613497473

  7. Chang, E., Eddins-Folensbee, F., & Coverdale, J. (2012). Survey of the prevalence ofburnout, stress, depression, and the use of supports by medical students at oneschool. Academic Psychiatry, 36(3), 177-182. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.11040079

  8. de la Peña, F. R., Rosetti, M. F., Rodríguez-Delgado, A., Villavicencio, L. R., Palacio,J. D., Montiel, C., Mayer, P. A., Félix, F. J., Larraguibel, M., Viola, L., Ortiz,S., Fernández, S., Jaímes, A., Feria, M., Sosa, L., Palacios-Cruz, L., & Ulloa,R. E. (2018a). Construct validity and parent–child agreement of the six new ormodified disorders included in the Spanish version of the Kiddie Schedule forAffective Disorders and Schizophrenia present and Lifetime Version DSM-5(K-SADS-PL-5). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 101, 28-33.

  9. de la Peña, F. R., Villavicencio, L. R., Palacio, J. D., Félix, F. J., Larraguibel, M., Viola,L., Ortiz, S., Rosetti, M., Abadi, A., Montiel, C., Mayer, P. A., Fernández, S.,Jaimes, A., Feria, M., Sosa, L., Rodríguez, A., Zavaleta, P., Uribe, D., Galicia, F.,… Ulloa, R. E. (2018b). Validity and reliability of the kiddie schedule for affectivedisorders and schizophrenia present and lifetime version DSM-5 (K-SADS-PL-5)Spanish version. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1773-0

  10. Dol, M., Reed, M., & Ferro, M. A. (2022). Internalizing–Externalizing Comorbidityand Impaired Functioning in Children. Children, 9(10), 1547. doi: 10.3390/children9101547

  11. Gold, L. H. (2014). DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: the World HealthOrganization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Journal ofthe American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(2), 173-181.

  12. Gspandl, S., Peirson, R. P., Nahhas, R. W., Skale, T. G., & Lehrer, D. S. (2018).Comparing global assessment of functioning (GAF) and World HealthOrganization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in schizophrenia.Psychiatry Research, 259, 251-253. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.033

  13. Hernández-Orduña, O., Robles-García, R., Martínez-López, N., Muñoz-Toledo, C.,González-Salas, A., Cabello, M., Domínguez-Martínez, T., & Medina-Mora, M.E. (2017). WHODAS and the evaluation of disability among people with mentaldisorders with and without psychotic symptoms. Salud Mental, 40(5), 209-217.10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2017.027

  14. Hu, L., Zang, Y.-L., & Li, N. (2012). The applicability of WHODAS 2.0 inadolescents in China. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(17‐18), 2438-2451. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04126.x

  15. Kimber, M., Rehm, J., & Ferro, M. A. (2015). Measurement invariance of theWHODAS 2.0 in a population-based sample of youth. PloS One, 10(11),e0142385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142385

  16. Martínez-Taboas, A., Medina-Sustache, E., González-Díaz, D. Y., Prats Aparicio, A.C., Garraham Viejo, A. M., García, J. D. J., Landrau Sálamo, A., & Rodríguez-Cay, J. R. (2017). El WHODAS 2.0 en Puerto Rico: psicometría y su relacióncon la escala de evaluación de actividad global con pacientes psiquiátricos.Salud y Sociedad, 8(1), 82-93. doi: 10.22199/S07187475.2017.0001.00006

  17. Moster, D., Lie, R. T., & Markestad, T. (2008). Long-term medical and socialconsequences of preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 262-273. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706475

  18. Mullen, P. E., Martin, J. L., Anderson, J. C., Romans, S. E., & Herbison, G. P. (1996).The long-term impact of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of childrenA community study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(95)00112-3

  19. Myroniuk, S., Reitsema, A. M., de Jonge, P., & Jeronimus, B. F. (2022). Specifictypes of childhood abuse and neglect and profiles of adult emotion dynamics.PsyArXiv.

  20. Pedersen, G., & Karterud, S. (2012). The symptom and function dimensions of theGlobal Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry,53(3), 292-298. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.04.007

  21. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. RFoundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  22. Ramklint, M., Söderberg, P., Tungström, S., Nordenskjöld, A., & Hermansson, L.(2022). Validity of the self-rated 36-item World Health Organization DisabilityAssessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 as a measure of functioning in Swedishpsychiatric outpatients. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 77(3), 276-281. doi:10.1080/08039488.2022.2097738

  23. Reed, G. M. (2010). Toward ICD-11: Improving the clinical utility of WHO'sInternational Classification of mental disorders. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 41(6), 457-464. doi: 10.1037/a0021701

  24. Rohrbeck, C. A. (2003). Chapter - Peer relationships, adolescence. In Encyclopedia ofprimary prevention and health promotion (pp. 808-812). Boston, MA: Springer.

  25. Rotter, K. (2018). Valoración de la salud y la discapacidad: WHODAS 2.0.Rehabilitación Integral, 13(1), 6-7.

  26. Scorza, P., Stevenson, A., Canino, G., Mushashi, C., Kanyanganzi, F., Munyanah,M., & Betancourt, T. (2013). Validation of the “World Health Organizationdisability assessment schedule for children, WHODAS-child” in Rwanda. PloSOne, 8(3), e57725. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057725

  27. Smith, G. N., Ehmann, T. S., Flynn, S. W., MacEwan, G. W., Tee, K., Kopala, L.C., Thornton, A. E., Schenk, C. H., & Honer, W. G. (2011). The assessment ofsymptom severity and functional impairment with DSM-IV Axis V. PsychiatricServices, 62(4), 411-417. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.62.4.411

  28. Söderberg, P., Tungström, S., & Armelius, B. Å. (2005). Special section on theGAF: Reliability of Global Assessment of Functioning ratings made by clinicalpsychiatric staff. Psychiatric Services, 56(4), 434-438. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.4.434

  29. Üstün, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan,J., Saxena, S., von Korff, M., & Pull, C. (2010). Developing the World HealthOrganization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World HealthOrganization, 88(11), 815-823. doi: 10.2471/BLT.09.067231

  30. Von Korff, M., Katon, W. J., Lin, E. H., Ciechanowski, P., Peterson, D., Ludman, E.J., Young, B., & Rutter, C. M. (2011). Functional outcomes of multi-conditioncollaborative care and successful ageing: results of randomised trial. BMJ, 343,d6612. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6612

  31. World Health Organization. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on thesocial determinants of health. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44489

  32. Wright, A. G., Krueger, R. F., Hobbs, M. J., Markon, K. E., Eaton, N. R., & Slade,T. (2013). The structure of psychopathology: toward an expanded quantitativeempirical model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(1), 281-294. doi:10.1037/a0030133




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com