Introduction
In the healthcare industry, specific tools are used to assess and measure various phenomena, including illness, emotional state, and others. The same applies when measuring patients’ health, disability, and quality of life. Both formal and informal instruments are available to cope with the task, and healthcare professionals should understand their basics to be able to choose appropriate options. The given presentation focuses on three formal measures, including WHO DAS 2.0, WHOQOL-100, and PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0. These instruments will be reviewed in detail, commenting on their purpose, practicality, reliability, validity, and others. Furthermore, some informal tools to conduct the assessment will also be provided.
WHO DAS 2.0
The first instrument under review is Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 by the World Health Organization. It is used to assess people’s health and disability, focusing on mental, neurological, and addictive disorders (World Health Organization, n.d.b). That is why this instrument asks respondents to evaluate their own abilities within six domains. The areas of interest include cognition, ability, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation (World Health Organization, n.d.b). Consequently, this self-report measurement scale can demonstrate whether an individual has problems communicating, moving, staying alone, interacting with others, and so on. This information can reveal whether a person needs any assistance.
The instrument has many advantages that advocate for relying on it. Younus et al. (2017) stipulate that the assessment’s Cronbach’s alpha ranges between 0.704 and 0.906 depending on which domain is under consideration. Simultaneously, the researchers indicate that the instrument has good construct validity (Younus et al., 2017). It is also necessary to add that the tool has high intercultural fairness because it is applicable across many cultures (World Health Organizations, n.d.). In addition to that, all adult populations can complete this measurement scale. Finally, the instrument’s practicality is at a decent level because it is short and easy to use (World Health Organization, n.d.b).
In conclusion, it is possible to present the strengths and limitations of the instrument under analysis. On the one hand, its advantages include its applicability in different settings. In particular, the World Health Organization (n.d.b) stipulates that it is possible to use this assessment in clinical and general population settings. High reliability and validity, as well as the possibility to use WHO DAS 2.0 in different cultures, represent another strength. On the other hand, the instrument’s limitation refers to the fact that it is a self-report tool. Thus, there is an opportunity that false results can be achieved when respondents introduce incorrect information about themselves. It is necessary to draw attention to this bias when interpreting the results.
WHOQOL-100
The second instrument is the World Health Organization Quality of Life 100. Clinicians tend to use it when it is necessary to assess people’s quality of life and their position in the world. This tool consists of 100 self-report questions that focus on six areas in addition to the overall quality of life. According to Physiopedia (n.d.), these areas include physical health, psychological area, level of independence, social relations, environment, and spirituality/religion/personal beliefs. Information from these domains allows for identifying whether a person meets expectations and goals within culture and value systems.
The given instrument is said to have high reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha of at least 0.94 supports this claim (Physiopedia, n.d.). Simultaneously, WHOQOL-100 features high construct, divergent, and convergent validity, which demonstrates that it is reasonable to rely on this instrument. Fifteen WHO centers across the globe participated in creating the tool, which reveals its intercultural fairness (World Health Organization, n.d.a). In addition to that, the fact that the instrument is translated to more than 20 languages also denotes that the tool can be applied cross-culturally. Simultaneously, the measurement scale is practical when applied to the general population and groups of people having specific health conditions.
Now, it is rational to comment on the primary strengths and limitations of the instrument. Firstly, the tool is effective because it has high validity and reliability. Secondly, the availability of the assessment in more than 20 languages is another strength. Thirdly, it is an effective instrument to identify individuals who have depression (Physiopedia, n.d.). However, it is impossible to mention that this tool does not have any disadvantages. Similar to WHO DAS 2.0, WHOQOL-100 is a self-report tool, meaning that the effectiveness of outcomes depends on how thoroughly and honestly individuals respond to its questions. With this in mind, there is no doubt that all the positive factors outweigh the limitation, meaning that WHOQOL-100 is deservedly a requested instrument.
PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System – 57 Profile v2.0 is the third formal assessment tool reviewed in this presentation. It is used to assess people’s health and quality of life. This information is obtained because respondents are asked to answer questions from seven essential domains. They are depression, anxiety, physical function, pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and the ability to participate in social roles (Unlimited Upload, 2020). Each of these areas further consists of eight questions that contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of people’s quality of life and health condition.
Scientific evidence demonstrates that the given tool has high reliability and validity. In particular, Rimehaug et al. (2021) stipulate that Cronbach’s alpha is 0.91-0.98, while concurrent and discriminatory validity is satisfactory. This instrument was developed for adults, but specific versions can be found for pediatric patients. There is no explicit evidence regarding the tool’s intercultural fairness, but it can be translated into different languages. For example, a study by Rimehaug et al. (2021) assesses a Norwegian version. Finally, it is possible to admit decent practicality of the instrument because filling in the questionnaire does not require much time and effort.
When it comes to commenting on the strengths of PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0, it is reasonable to highlight decent validity and reliability scores. This information demonstrates that the given instrument is capable of producing consistent results. That is why many health care professionals keep using it to assess people’s health and quality of life. Simultaneously, the selected tool implies some limitations, and being a self-report instrument is among them. As has already been mentioned, this fact results in the presence of bias in outcomes. In addition to that, it was not possible to find explicit data that could explain the instrument’s cultural fairness. Consequently, there is an opportunity that PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0 can produce deteriorated outcomes when applied to representatives of different cultures.
Informal Assessments
The three instruments under review are examples of formal assessments. This information denotes that the tools imply a structured and formalized way of evaluating individuals. With this, it is reasonable to admit that informal approaches can also be used. They include observations, interviews of third persons, and ordinary interviews (Morrow-Odom et al., 2017). They do not imply any predetermined structure, while the choice of specific activities and questions depends on the person performing the assessment. These informal instruments are used when people cannot complete formal instruments or when health care professionals believe that they will manage to assess clients without the need for specifically tailored questionnaires. However, it is worth admitting that the information assessments are also subject to bias because medical professionals’ expertise and skills affect assessment outcomes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the presentation has reviewed three formal instruments to assess people’s health, disability, and quality of life. They are WHO DAS 2.0, WHOQOL-100, and PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0. Each of them implies its own peculiarities, strengths, and limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. PROMIS-57 Profile v2.0 is said to have more weaknesses because this tool lacks information about its intercultural fairness, while all three instruments are subject to bias because they are self-report tools. In addition to that, it is possible to assess people’s health and quality of life by relying on informal tools that include interviews and observation. They also imply some limitations, and it is reasonable to use both formal and informal instruments to obtain more comprehensive outcomes.
References
Morrow-Odom, K. L., Moser, D., & Neils-Strunjas, J. (2017). Current practices in the assessment of quality of life in individuals with aphasia. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders, 2(2), 185-195.
Physiopedia. (n.d.). WHOQOL-100.
Rimehaug, S. A., Kaat, A. J., Nordvik, J. E.,Klokkerud, M., & Robinson, H. S. (2021). Psychometric properties of the PROMIS-57 questionnaire, Norwegian version. Quality of Life Research.
Unlimited Upload. (2020). PROMIS adult profile instruments.
World Health Organization. (n.d.a). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life.
World Health Organization. (n.d.b). WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).
Younus, M. I., Wang, D.-M., Yu, F.-F., Fang, H., & Guo, X. (2017). Reliability and validity of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with Kashin-Beck disease.Rheumatology International, 37, 1567-1573.