Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

1

The ICF model and survey-instruments

Niels Kr. Rasmussen

National Institute of Public Health, Denmark

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

2

• Is the ICF-classification useful for classification of survey-instruments and survey based indicators– or

• Are traditional surveys useful for measurements within the ICF framework

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

3

Disability measures in European HIS

• Background: many approaches to and developments of general/holistic and specific measures of disability in European countries, both in special disability surveys and in multipurpose and HIS surveys, often based on the old OECD concepts and recommendations

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

4

• Recent inventories– HIS/HES database developed within the HMP – Survey data on disability, Eurostat working paper– Updated summary inventory

• Identification of app. 50 surveys measuring various aspects of disability from all EU-member states and some European

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

5

Classifications used in inventories

• Ad hoc, not theory-driven• What is it possible to expect respondents to

respond to– Chronic or acute health problems, – Restriction of daily activities/general– Restriction in daily activities/specific– Participation in work and other– Access

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

6

Global disability screening measures

• Limitation in daily activities (usually during a two week period

• Longstanding illness (limiting)

– In most surveys

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

7

Comparability (1)

• Activity limitation/general – 5 out of 14 surveys

• Activity limitation/specific:– Mobility, sensory, self-care

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

8

Comparability (2)

– Different wording of questions or translations

– Different recall periods– Differents domains and activities– Different qualifiers and scales

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

9

What is the correspondance between EU-surveys and ICF?

• Body functions and structures

• Health conditions or diseases

• Activities

• Participation

• Environmental factors

• Personal factors

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

10

Covered by EU-surveys

Feasibility of self assessment/re-

porting

Body functions and structures

proxy

Health conditions or diseases ++ proxy

Activities-Specific-Global

++ Performance ++

Capacity/hypothetical +

Participation + +Environm. factors:

Indiv.

Societal:0

+

++

Personal factors ++ ++

Washington D.C. February 18-20

Washington City Group on Disability Statistics

11

Problems in operationalising complex concepts for survey purposes

• How to translate complex concepts into everyday language

• Distinquishing between performance and capacity

• Selfreporting of stigmatised matters• Selfreporting of surroundings and contexts

and the barriers, effects etc on the individual• Validity, transcultural problems etc.