Construct Validity and Clinical Utility of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Older Patients Discharged From Emergency Departments.

The study analysed 129 older emergency department patients, so the results may not apply to other populations. The design was cross-sectional, so it could not test whether WHODAS 2.0 detects change in disability over time. Four WHODAS 2.0 domains had floor effects, and three items had more than 15% missing responses, which can reduce clinical usefulness. Patients unable to communicate, terminally ill, admitted from a nursing home, or transferred to other departments were excluded, so the findings do not cover those groups. The sample was smaller than some comparable studies, and the confidence intervals were affected by the sample size, so the exact strength of relationships is uncertain.

The authors declared no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The funding note names TrygFonden.

Do not read the WHODAS 2.0 as a proven replacement for Barthel-20, AMPS, Timed Up and Go or 30 s-CST. The study did not test change over time, and four domains had floor effects while three items had more than 15% missing responses.