Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > Europa Medicophysica 2002 September;38(3) > Europa Medicophysica 2002 September;38(3):123-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   Freefree

Europa Medicophysica 2002 September;38(3):123-9

Copyright © 2002 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

The β-2 draft of the international classification of impairment, disabilities and handicap. Application to communication disorders

Schindler A. 1, Manassero A. 2, Dao M. 2, Giraudo E. 2, Grosso E. 2, Tiddia C. 2, Schindler O. 2

1 4th Department of Otorhinolaryngology, «L. Sacco» Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 2 Audiology and Phoniatrics Chair «S. Giovanni Battista» Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy


PDF


Back­ground. In 1980 the ­World ­Health Organ­iza­tion (WHO) pub­lished the ­ICIDH, Inter­na­tional Clas­sifi­ca­tion of Impair­ments, Dis­abil­ities and Hand­icap. The ­ICIDH is con­sid­ered as a pre­cise ­coding of impair­ments, dis­abil­ities and hand­i­caps and/or as a con­cep­tual frame­work for under­standing dis­able­ment. ­Despite its accep­tance, the ­ICIDH ­model and clas­sifi­ca­tion ­scheme has ­received its ­share of crit­i­cism. In 1993 a revi­sion pro­cess of the 1980 ­ICIDH was ­begun by WHO and in 1999 a “β-2” ­draft of the ­ICDH-2 has ­been com­pleted. Aim of our ­study is to ­verify the appli­cability of ­ICIDH-2 in the ­field of Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Dis­or­ders in devel­op­mental and ­adult pop­u­la­tions.
­Methods. A pros­pec­tive ­study was con­ducted. ­Patients ­were inter­viewed and clin­i­cally exam­ined as out-­patient at the “S. Gio­vanni Bat­tista” Hos­pital of ­Turin. Ten ­adults and 10 chil­dren, ­with com­mu­ni­ca­tion dis­or­ders of dif­ferent ­kind ­took ­part in the ­study. ­Time ­needed to ­code ­each sub­ject, ­intra-­rater and ­inter-­rater agree­ment ­were cal­cu­lated. Easi­ness and per­ti­nence of the clas­sifi­ca­tion ­were sub­jec­tively ­judged.
­Results. ­Mean ­time ­used in ­coding was 48 min in ­adult pop­u­la­tion and 67 min in chil­dren pop­u­la­tion. ­Overall ­inter-­rater agree­ment was 70% and ­intra-­rater agree­ment 80%. Per­ti­nence and easi­ness ­were con­sid­ered ­medium.
Con­clu­sions. ­ICIDH-2 it is not ­only a clin­ical ­tool, but ­also a com­mu­ni­ca­tion ­tool ­between ­health ­care ­workers and ­health ­care admin­is­tra­tors; its appli­cability to out­come ­research ­makes it ­useful for dif­ferent pro­fes­sions of the reha­bil­i­ta­tion ­world. Our ­study ­shows ­that ­ICIDH-2 is a ­useful ­tool for ­research pur­poses, but ­cannot be ­used as ­such in clin­ical prac­tice ­because of the ­amount of ­time ­needed in ­coding. The con­cep­tual frame­work is ­highly appre­ciated ­because of the ­holistic ­view it ­gives.

top of page