This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

46/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

We evaluated the psychometric properties of the 12-item interviewer-administered screener version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-version II (WHODAS II) among older people living in seven low- and middle-income countries. Principal component analysis (PCA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Mokken analyses were carried out to test for unidimensionality, hierarchical structure, and measurement invariance across 10/66 Dementia Research Group sites. PCA generated a one-factor solution in most sites. In CFA, the two-factor solution generated in Dominican Republic fitted better for all sites other than rural China. The two factors were not easily interpretable, and may have been an artefact of differing item difficulties. Strong internal consistency and high factor loadings for the one-factor solution supported unidimensionality. Furthermore, the WHODAS II was found to be a 'strong' Mokken scale. Measurement invariance was supported by the similarity of factor loadings across sites, and by the high between-site correlations in item difficulties. The Mokken results strongly support that the WHODAS II 12-item screener is a unidimensional and hierarchical scale confirming to item response theory (IRT) principles, at least at the monotone homogeneity model level. More work is needed to assess the generalizability of our findings to different populations.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Sousa, R. M., Dewey, M. E., Acosta, D., Jotheeswaran, A. T., Castro-Costa, E., Ferri, C. P., et al. (2010). Measuring disability across cultures--the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International journal of methods in psychiatric research. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.299

Vancouver

Sousa RM, Dewey ME, Acosta D, Jotheeswaran AT, Castro-Costa E, Ferri CP, et al. Measuring disability across cultures--the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 2010. doi:10.1002/mpr.299. PMID: 20104493.

BibTeX

@article{sousa2010-20104493,
  author  = {Sousa, R. M. and Dewey, M. E. and Acosta, D. and Jotheeswaran, A. T. and Castro-Costa, E. and Ferri, C. P. and Guerra, M. and Huang, Y. and others},
  title   = {{Measuring disability across cultures--the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey}},
  journal = {International journal of methods in psychiatric research},
  year    = {2010},
  doi     = {10.1002/mpr.299},
  pmid    = {20104493},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.299}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The Mokken results strongly support that the WHODAS II 12-item screener is a unidimensional and hierarchical scale confirming to item response theory (IRT) principles, at least at the monotone homogeneity model level.
More work is needed to assess the generalizability of our findings to different populations.

Why it matters

The 12-item WHODAS II disability screener performed as a unidimensional and hierarchical scale across sites in seven low- and middle-income countries. This is a measurement study of a disability questionnaire and does not address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 46/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of methods in psychiatric research)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research: journal h-index 112 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 118 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	6.6 citations a year over 18 year(s) since 2010
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 12.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 4 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Martin James Prince: h-index 116 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 8 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20104493)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	46 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

4 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →