1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 ++

11. 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.