臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
研究背景與目的：『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』為Cardol等人（1999）針對國際機能損傷、活動與參與分類系統（ICIDH-2）中「參與」概念所編製的評估工具，其題項亦能對應至國際健康功能與障礙分類系統（ICF）的參與領域。此量表主要在評估慢性障礙者自覺障礙對其參與和自主方面的影響或衝擊，共41題，可分為室內自主性、家庭角色、戶外自主性、社交關係、就業與教育等5個向度。考量目前國內少有針對ICF架構下個體自覺「參與」方面的評估工具，故本研究的目的為將IPA量表進行中文化，並以慢性精神病患者為樣本來檢驗其信效度，以期建立適合測量國內精神障礙者社會參與狀態的問卷。
研究方法：本研究以後向翻譯模式進行中文化翻譯，研究對象來源為台灣南部地區共13家精神復健機構的患者，其有效樣本數共175位，並自回收樣本中抽選三分之一的個案進行相隔二週的再測信度。本研究檢驗之心理計量有內部一致性、再測信度、內容效度、建構效度及同時效度，並分析受試者的認知程度與IPA中文版評估結果之關係。
研究結果：IPA中文版中，測量日常生活各項活動自覺的自主性及參與程度的部分共有25題，可分為室內自主性、居家及社區生活、就業與教育等3個向度。內部一致性（Cronbach’s α）為 .906至 .937間，再測信度（ICC）為 .785至 .904間；同時效度的部份，「室內自主性」、「居家及社區生活」兩向度與『WHODAS II 12題自填版』呈現中度正相關。受試者認知程度的部份，個案的『簡式智能量表-台灣中文版（MMSE-T）』得分與「室內自主性」或「居家及社區生活」向度呈現低度負相關，與「就業與教育」向度則無顯著相關。
研究結論：IPA中文版為一項具信效度的測驗工具，且適用於慢性精神病患者。另外，本研究之研究對象其「整體失能情形」對「自覺參與程度」是有影響力的，但「認知程度」卻不見得是影響因素。

Abstract
Objectives: The Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire (IPA) which was conceptually based on the ICIDH-2 was developed by Cardol and his colleagues (1999), and all the questions in the IPA can be corresponded to participation codes of the ICF. The IPA evaluates the perceived personal impact of chronic disability on participation and autonomy. It contains 41 questions and consists of 5 domains: Autonomy Indoors, Family Role, Autonomy Outdoors, Social Life and Relationships, Work and Education. There are few instruments being developed to assess the perceived participation regarding the ICF in Taiwan. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Taiwanese version of the IPA (IPA-T) utilizing a sample of people with mental illness in order to establish an instrument to assess the community participation for people with mental illness in Taiwan.
Methods: The IPA was translated into Taiwanese version following the forward-backward translation process. A total of 175 persons from 13 psychiatric rehabilitation institutions in southern Taiwan participated in this study, and one third of the participants were asked to complete the IPA-T again two weeks later. The internal reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity and concurrent validity of the IPA-T were examined, and the correlation of participants’ IPA-T results with their cognitive state was also analyzed.
Results: The IPA-T contains 25 items that assesses participation levels among daily activities, and can be classified into 3 domains: Autonomy Indoors, Domestic and Community Life, as well as Work and Education. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s α ranged from .906 to .937) and test-retest reliability of the IPA-T were confirmed for all subscales (ICC ranged from .785 to .904), and concurrent validity was supported by the positive correlations with the WHODAS II 12-item version. There was negative correlation between the MMSE-T and the ‘autonomy indoors’ or ‘domestic and community life’ subscales, but no correlation was found between the MMSE-T and the ‘work and education’ subscale.
Conclusions: The IPA-T is a reliable and valid instrument for people with mental illness. In this study, ‘general health and disability condition’ had power in predicting the ‘perceived participation’, but not ‘cognitive state’.

目錄
中文摘要 …………………………………………………….……………... i
英文摘要 …………………………………………………….……………... ii
目錄 …………………………………………………….…………………... iv
表目錄 ………………………………………………….…………………... vi
圖目錄 …………………………………………………….………………... viii
第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………….…………... 1
第一節 研究動機 ……………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 ……………………………………………… 5
第三節 名詞解釋 ……………………………………………………… 6
第二章 文獻回顧 ……………………………………………….…………... 9
第一節 社會參與對慢性精神病患者的意義…………………………… 9
第二節 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』的發展 ………………………… 11
第三節 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』的心理計量 …………………… 15
第四節 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』對不同族群障礙者的應用 ……………………………………………………………
24
第五節 ICF參與概念之相關效標工具 ……………………………… 28
第六節 小結 …………………………………………………………… 31
第三章 研究方法 ……………………………………………….…………... 33
第一節 研究對象 ……………………………………………………… 33
第二節 研究工具 ……………………………………………………… 36
第三節 研究步驟 ……………………………………………………… 41
第四節 資料分析 ……………………………………………………… 43
第四章 研究結果 ……………………………………………….…………... 45
第一節 效度分析 ……………………………………………………… 45
一、內容效度 ……………………………………………………… 45
二、建構效度 ……………………………………………………… 46
第二節 信度分析 ……………………………………………………… 56
一、內部一致性 …………………………………………………… 56
二、再測信度 ……………………………………………………… 58
第三節 同時效度 ……………………………………………………… 59
第四節 認知程度與『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』中文版結果之關係 ………………………………………………………………
59
第五節 對各領域所自覺的問題影響程度之信效度分析……………… 61
第五章 討論 …………………………………………………….…………... 67
第一節 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』中文版的信度 ………………… 67
第二節 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』中文版的效度 ………………… 69
第三節 本研究之收案對象結果分析 ………………………………… 73
第六章 結論與建議 …………………………………………….…………... 77
第一節 結論 …………………………………………………………… 77
第二節 研究限制 ……………………………………………………… 77
第三節 臨床應用 ……………………………………………………… 79
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………………….. 81
附錄 ………………………………………………………………………….. 91
附錄一 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』之使用同意函 …………………… 92
附錄二 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』中文化後向翻譯過程 ………… 94
附錄三 專家審查名單 ……………………………………………………… 106
附錄四 專家意見彙整表 …………………………………………………… 107
附錄五 成功大學人類行為科學研究倫理審查委員會（NCKU-REC）一般審查意見回覆 …………………………………………………
125
附錄六 臨床試驗許可書 …………………………………………………… 127
附錄七 受訪者同意書 ……………………………………………………… 129
附錄八 『世界衛生組織障礙評估手冊2.0版（WHODAS II）』12題自填版 …………………………………………………………………
131
附錄九 『參與和自主衝擊問卷（IPA）』中文版 ………………………… 133
附錄十 受訪者基本資料表 ………………………………………………… 143




表目錄
表2-1 IPA題項對應之分類表 ……………………………………………… 14
表3-1 人口學背景變項之描述性統計 …………………………………… 35
表3-2 WHODAS II版本比較 ……………………………………………… 38
表3-3 WHODAS II 12題簡短版的總分分級常模對應表 ………………… 39
表4-1 IPA中文版之KMO與Bartlett檢定 ………………………………… 47
表4-2 Kaiser（1974）建議的KMO判斷標準 ……………………………… 47
表4-3 IPA中文版特徵值大於1之解釋總變異量 ………………………… 48
表4-4 IPA中文版之解釋總變異量（萃取五因子） ………………………… 49
表4-5 IPA中文版之因素分析樣式矩陣（萃取五因子）…………………… 51
表4-6 IPA中文版之解釋總變異量（萃取四因子） ………………………… 52
表4-7 IPA中文版之因素分析樣式矩陣（萃取四因子） …………………… 53
表4-8 IPA中文版之解釋總變異量（萃取三因子） ……………………… 54
表4-9 IPA中文版之因素分析樣式矩陣（萃取三因子） …………………… 55
表4-10 IPA中文版題項對應之分量表 …………………………………… 56
表4-11 IPA中文版自原始問卷所刪除的題項 …………………………… 56
表4-12 因素一「室內自主性」向度之內部一致性 ………………………… 57
表4-13 因素二「居家及社區生活」向度之內部一致性…………………… 57
表4-14 因素三「就業與教育」向度之內部一致性 ………………………… 58
表4-15 IPA中文版各向度之再測信度 …………………………………… 58
表4-16 IPA中文版各向度與『WHODAS II 12題自填版』總分間的相關 … 59
表4-17 IPA中文版各向度與MMSE-T間的相關…………………………… 60
表4-18 研究對象「室內自主性」預測模式逐步多元迴歸分析摘要表…… 60
表4-19 研究對象「居家及社區生活」預測模式逐步多元迴歸分析摘要表……………………………………………………………………
61
表4-20 研究對象「就業與教育」預測模式逐步多元迴歸分析摘要表…… 61
表4-21 IPA中文版第二部份之KMO與Bartlett檢定 …………………… 62
表4-22 IPA中文版第二部份之解釋總變異量 …………………………… 63
表4-23 IPA中文版對「所覺察的問題影響程度」之題目再測信度………… 64
表4-24 IPA中文版第二部份與『WHODAS II 12題自填版』總分間的相關 …………………………………………………………………
65
表5-1 「個案所覺察的問題影響程度」9題的再測信度（皮爾森積差相關係數）……………………………………………………………
69
表5-2 積差相關係數判別二變項間之關聯程度判定表 ………………… 69
表5-3 IPA荷蘭版/英語版與IPA中文版分量表題項比較 ………………… 71
表5-4 IPA荷蘭版、英語版與中文版研究對象差異說明 ………………… 71
表5-5 收案對象MMSE-T、WHODAS II及IPA各分量表分析結果 …… 74


圖目錄
圖1-1 ICF分類系統架構 …………………………………………………… 2
圖3-1 WHODAS II 12題簡短版IRT分數的人口百分位分布圖 ………… 40
圖4-1 IPA中文版之因素陡坡圖 …………………………………………… 49
圖4-2 IPA中文版第二部份之因素陡坡圖 ………………………………… 63

參考文獻
一、 中文文獻
身心障礙者權益保障法（2007年7月11日）。
王湘慧、廖華芳（2004）。測量工具之反應性研究回顧，物理治療，29（4），263-270。
宋麗玉（2005）。精神障礙者之復健與復元-一個積極正向的觀點，中華心理衛生學刊，18（4），1-29。
李中一（2004）。測量工具的效度與信度，台灣衛誌，23（4），272-281。
李淑貞（譯）（2009）。國際健康功能與身心障礙分類系統。行政院衛生署97-99年度委託科技研究計畫（編號：DOH97-TD-M-113-97017），未出版。
余民寧（1993）。試題反應理論的介紹（十三）-試題偏差的診斷，研習資訊，10（6），7-11。
沈楚文等（1993）。新編精神醫學。臺北市：永大。
吳明隆、凃金堂（2006）。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市：五南。
吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷統計分析實務。臺北市：五南。
杜維鏌、白嘉惠、王敏行（譯）（2010）。以國際健康功能與障礙分類系統（ICF）架構為基礎的身心障礙者職業重建成果評估，復健諮商，4，23-42。
周文欽、歐滄和、許擇基、盧欽銘、金樹人、范德鑫（1995）。心理與教育測驗。臺北市：心理。
姚開屏（1996）。從心理計量的觀點看測量工具的發展，職能治療學會雜誌，14（1），v-xxi。
郭乃文、劉秀枝、王珮芳、徐道昌（1989）。中文版簡短式智能評估之簡介。臨床醫學，23（1），39-42。
郭乃文、劉秀枝、王珮芳、廖光淦、甄瑞興、林恭平、陳祖裕、徐道昌（1988）。「簡短式智能評估」之中文施測與常模建立。中華民國復健醫學會雜誌，16，52-59。
凃金堂（2012）。量表編製與SPSS。臺北市：五南。
葛樹人（1989）。心理測驗學。臺北市：桂冠圖書
楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園（1989）。社會及行為科學研究法。臺北市：東華。

二、 英文文獻
Arvidsson, P., Granlund, M., &; Thyberg, M. (2008). Factors related to self-rated participation in adolescents and adults with mild intellectual disability-a systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 277-291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00405.x
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
Cardol, M., Brandsma, J. W., de Groot, I. J., van den Bos, G. A., de Haan, R. J., &; de Jong, B. A. (1999). Handicap questionnaires: What do they assess? Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(3), 97-105.
Cardol, M., de Haan, R. J., van den Bos, G. A., de Jong, B. A., &; de Groot, I. J. (1999). The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: The impact on participation and autonomy (IPA). Clinical Rehabilitation, 13(5), 411-419. doi:10.1191/026921599668601325
Cardol, M., de Haan, R. J., de Jong, B. A., van den Bos, G. A., &; de Groot, I. J. (2001). Psychometric properties of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(2), 210-216. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.18218
Cardol, M., Beelen, A., van den Bos, G. A., de Jong, B. A., de Groot, I. J., &; de Haan, R. J. (2002). Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(11), 1524-1529. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35099
Cardol, M., de Jong, B. A., &; Ward, C. D. (2002). On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(18), 970-974. doi:10.1080/09638280210151996
Cardol, M., de Jong, B. A., &; Ward, C. D. (2002). On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation: A response. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(18), 1001-1004. doi: 10.1080/09638280210152094
Cardol, M., de Jong, B. A., van den Bos, G. A., Beelen, A., de Groot, I. J., &; de Haan, R. J. (2002). Beyond disability: Perceived participation in people with a chronic disabling condition. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16, 27-35. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr464oa
Cardol, M. (2004). ‘Impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) Dutch version (Dutch language). Retrieved from http://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/INT-vragenlijstIPA.pdf
Cardol, M. (2005). ‘Impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) manual to the Dutch version (Dutch language). Retrieved from http://www.nivel.nl/pdf/INT-handleiding_vragenlijstIPA.pdf
Corrigan, P. W., Mueser, K. T., Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., &; Solomon, P. (2008). Principles and practice of psychiatric rehabilitation. New York : Guilford.
Chan, F., Keegan, J., Sung, C., Drout, M., Pai, C. H., Anderson, E., &; McLain, N. (2009). The world health organization ICF model as a framework for assessing vocational rehabilitation outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 33(2), 91-112.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., &; Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Dijkers, M. P. (2010). Issues in the conceptualization and measurement o participation: An overview. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(1), S5-S16. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.036
Eklund, M., Hannson, L., &; Bejerholm, U. (2001). Relationship between satisfaction with occupational factors and health-related variables in schizophrenia outpatients. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatry Epidemiology, 36, 79-85.
Eklund, M., Hannson, L., &; Alhqvist, C. (2004). The importance of work as compared to other forms of daily occupations for wellbeing and functioning among persons with long-term mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(5), 465-477.
Fleiss, J. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York : John Wiley &; Sons.
Heinemann, A. W. (2005). Metrics of rehabilitation research capacity. American Journal of Physical Medicine &; Rehabilitation, 84(12), 1009-1019. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000187898.20945.2f
Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Whiteneck, G., Bogner, J., &; Rodriguez, E. (2008). What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(19), 1445-1460. doi:10.1080/09638280701625534
Haglund, L., &; Fältman, S. (2012). Activity and participation – self-assessment according to the international classification of functioning: a study in mental health. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(9), 412-418. doi:10.4276/030802212X13470263980793
Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., &; Kooyoomjian, J. T. (2003). Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 35, 145-149. doi:10.1080/16501970310010501
Kersten, P. (2002). Autonomy: the be all and end all in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(18), 993-995. doi: 10.1080/09638280210152076
Kersten, P. (2005). ‘Impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) English version. Retrieved from http://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/INT-IPA-Manual.pdf
Kersten, P. (2007). ‘Impact on participation and autonomy’ (IPA) manual to the English version : IPA. Retrieved from http://www.nivel.nl/pdf/INT-IPA-Manual.pdf
Kersten, P., Cardol, M., George, S., Ward, C., Sibley, A., &; White, B. (2007). Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: A comparison between two countries. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(19), 1502-1509. doi:10.1080/09638280601030066
King, R., Lloid, C., &; Meehan, T. (2007). Handbook of psychosocial rehabilitation. Oxford, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
King, R., Lloid, C., Meehan, T., Deane, F. P., &; Kavanagh, D. J. (2012). Manual of psychosocial rehabilitation. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kaplan, K., Salzer, M. S., &; Brusilovskly, E. (2012). Community participation as a predictor of recovery-oriented outcomes among emerging and mature adults with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35(3), 219-229. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2975/35.3.2012.219.229
Liberman, R. P. (2008). Recovert from disability: manual of psychiatric disability. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.
Lund, M. L., Nordlund, A., Nygård, L., Lexell, J., &; Bernspång, B. (2005). Perceptions of participation and predictors of perceived problems with participation in persons with spinal cord injurt. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 3-8. doi:10.1080/16501970410031246
Lund, M. L., Fisher, A. G., Lexell, J., &; Bernspång, B. (2007). Impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: Internal scale validity of the Swedish version for use in people with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 156-162. doi:10.2340/16501977-0031
Lund, M. L., Nordlund, A., Bernspång, B., &; Lexell, J., (2007). Perceived participation and problems in participation are determinants of life satisfaction in people with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(18), 1417-1422. doi:10.1080/09638280601029068
Lund, M. L., &; Lexell, J., (2009a). Association between perceptions of environmental barriers and participation in persons with late effects of polio. ScandinavianJournal of Occupational Therapy, 16, 194-204. doi:10.3109/11038120802676691
Lund, M. L., &; Lexell, J., (2009b). Relationship between participation in life situations and life satisfaction in persons with late effects of polio. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(19), 1592-1597. doi:10.1080/09638280802638881
Magasi, S., &; Post, M. W. (2010). A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content converage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,91(1), 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.011
Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Chan, AR., Mâsse, L. C., &; Dvorak, M. (2009). Comparing the content of participation instruments using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(93), 1-12. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-93
Noonan, V. K., Miller, W. C., &; Noreau, L., (2009). A review of instruments assessing participation in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47, 435-446. doi:10.1038/sc.2008.171
Perenboom, R. J., &; Chorus, A. M. (2003). Measuring participation according to the international classification of functioning, disability and health(ICF). Disability Rehabilitation, 25(11-12), 577-587. doi:10.1080/0963828031000137081
Peterson, D. B. (2005). International classification of functioning , disability and health: An introduction of rehabilitation psychologist. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50(2), 105-112. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.105
Rogers, E. S., Chamberlain, J., Ellison, M. L., &; Crean, T. (1997). A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 48(8), 1042-1047.
Scherer, M. J., &; Glueckauf, R. (2005). Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50(2), 132-141. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.132
Sim, J., &; Wright, C. C.(2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies : Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257-268.
Stucki, G. (2005). International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF) : A promising framework and classification of rehabilitation medicine. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(5), 733-740. doi:10.1097/01.phm.0000179521.70639.83
Sibley, A., Kersten, P., Ward, C. D., White, B., Mehta, R. &; George, S. (2006). Measuring autonomy in disabled people: validation of a new scale in a UK population. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(9), 793-803. doi:10.1177/0269215506070808
Streiner, D. L. &; Norman G. R.(2008). Health measurement scales : A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.
The WHOQOL Group. (1998). Development of the World Health Organaization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 551-558.
Taal, M., Wessels, M. &; van der Molen, M. (2001). Choice making, competence and well being of persons with mild mental retardation or borderline intelligence. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 29, 49–60.
van Wel, T., Felling, A., &; Persoon, J. (2003). The effect of psychiatric rehabilitation on the activity and participation level of clients with long-term psychiatric disabilities. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(6), 535-546.
van Niekerk, L. (2009). Participation in work: A source of wellness for people with psychiatric disability. Work, 32(4), 455-465. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0856
Vazirinejad, R., Lilley, J. M., &; Ward, C. D. (2003). The ‘Impact on Participation and Autonomy’: acceptability of the English version in a multiple sclerosis outpatient setting. Multiple Sclerosis, 9, 612-615. doi:10.1191/1352458503ms936oa
Videler, A. J., Beelen, A., van Schaik, I. N., de Visser, M., &; Nollet, F. (2009). Limited upper limb functioning has impact on restrictions in participation and autonomy of patients with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy 1A. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41, 746-750. doi:10.2340/16501977-0419
Wehmeyer, M. L., &; Garner, N. W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(4), 255–265. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x
World Health Organization (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps : ICIDH. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (1997). International Classification of Impairments, Activities, and Participation : ICIDH-2. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health : ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf
World Health Organization (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241547598_eng.pdf