Development and Validation of the 34-Item Disability Screening Questionnaire (DSQ-34) for Use in Low and Middle Income Countries Epidemiological and Development Surveys
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 10, Issue: 12, Page: e0143610
2015
- 33Citations
- 226Usage
- 65Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations33
- Citation Indexes23
- 23
- CrossRef20
- Policy Citations10
- 10
- Usage226
- Downloads198
- Abstract Views28
- Captures65
- Readers65
- 65
Article Description
Background: Although 80% of persons with disabilities live in low and middle-income countries, there is still a lack of comprehensive, cross-culturally validated tools to identify persons facing activity limitations and functioning difficulties in these settings. In absence of such a tool, disability estimates vary considerably according to the methodology used, and policies are based on unreliable estimates. Methods and Findings: The Disability Screening Questionnaire composed of 27 items (DSQ-27) was initially designed by a group of international experts in survey development and disability in Afghanistan for a national survey. Items were selected based on major domains of activity limitations and functioning difficulties linked to an impairment as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Face, content and construct validity, as well as sensitivity and specificity were examined. Based on the results obtained, the tool was subsequently refined and expanded to 34 items, tested and validated in Darfur, Sudan. Internal consistency for the total DSQ-34 using a raw and standardized Cronbach's Alpha and within each domain using a standardized Cronbach's Alpha was examined in the Asian context (India and Nepal). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring (PAF) evaluated the lowest number of factors to account for the common variance among the questions in the screen. Test-retest reliability was determined by calculating intraclass correlation (ICC) and inter-rater reliability by calculating the kappa statistic; results were checked using Bland-Altman plots. The DSQ-34 was further tested for standard error of measurement (SEM) and for the minimum detectable change (MDC). Good internal consistency was indicated by Cronbach's Alpha of 0.83/0.82 for India and 0.76/0.78 for Nepal. We confirmed our assumption for EFA using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling well above the accepted cutoff of 0.40 for India (0.82) and Nepal (0.82). The criteria for Bartlett's test of sphericity were also met for both India (< .001) and Nepal (< .001). Estimates of reliability from the two countries reached acceptable levels of ICC of 0.75 (p < 0.001) for India of 0.77 for Nepal (p < 0.001) and good strength of agreement for weighted kappa (respectively 0.77 and 0.79). The SEM/MDC was 0.80/2.22 for India and 0.96/2.66 for Nepal indicating a smaller amount of measurement error in the screen. Conclusions: In Nepal and India, the DSQ-34 shows strong psychometric properties that indicate that it effectively discriminates between persons with and without disabilities. This instrument can be used in association with other instruments for the purpose of comparing health outcomes of persons with and without disabilities in LMICs.
Bibliographic Details
https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/open_access_pubs/4424; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bsltests/3541; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/brown_facpubs/49
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84955570214&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26630668; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t003; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/open_access_pubs/4424; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5430&context=open_access_pubs; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bsltests/3541; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4540&context=bsltests; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/brown_facpubs/49; https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=brown_facpubs; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610&type=printable; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0143610; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t002; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143610.t003
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know