Keywords
ICF
WHODAS
disability
rehabilitation
support system
inclusion
technology
How to Cite
Abstract
The contemporary approach to functional assessment of persons with disabilities abandons the traditional medical model in favour of a holistic perspective based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The article analyses the evolution of disability models, moving from a medical approach, through social approaches, to the current bio-psychosocial model, which is reflected in the ICF. This classification replaced the earlier ICI DH (International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps), which focused on health impairments. The new ICF approach assumes that disability is the result of interactions between a person’s health condition and environmental and personal factors. This classification does not evaluate people, but only describes their functioning in various spheres of life. The article discusses ICF-related, diagnosis-independent assessment tools such as WHODAS 2.0. It also presents the use of functional assessment in various contexts and discusses the role of modern technologies such as wearable sensors and artificial intelligence.
References
1. Knopik M.: Diagnoza funkcjonalna odnośnie do edukacji włączającej. – w Knopik M., Domagała-Zyśk A. (red.): Edukacja włączająca. Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin, 2021.
2. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej: Nowe podejście do kształcenia specjalnego w Polsce. MEN, Warszawa, 2025.
3. Wojewódzki Urząd Pracy w Opolu: Wykorzystanie klasyfikacji ICF w programach aktywizacji społeczno-zawodowej osób niepełnosprawnych. WUP, Opole, 2018.
4. World Health Organization, World Bank: World report on disability. WHO Press, Genewa, 2011.
5. Kaplan D.B.: The social model of disability. – w Mizrahi T., Davis L.E. (red.): Encyclopedia of Social Work. 20th ed. Oxford University Press, 2009.
6. World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO Press, Genewa, 2001.
7. Hemmingsson H., Jonsson H.: The World Health Organization’s ICF: a framework for an occupational therapy-based analysis of the social model of disability. Am J Occup Ther, 2005; 59(1): 86-95.
8. Adolfsson M., Granlund M., Björck-Åkesson E. et al.: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the ICF CY. Paediatr Child Health, 2009; 14(10): 653-657.
9. World Health Organization: Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. WHO, Genewa, 2002.
10. World Health Organization: ICF and the environmental factors. WHO, Genewa, 2016.
11. Stucki G., Cieza A., Ewert T. et al.: The use of the ICF in clinical practice. Clin Rehabil, 2002; 16(3): 239-254.
12. Cieza A., Ewert T., Üstün T.B. et al.: Development of ICF Core Sets for patients with chronic conditions. J Rehabil Med, 2004; 36(Suppl 44): 9-
11.
13. Cieza A., Kirchberger I., Biering-Sørensen F. et al.: ICF Core Sets for individuals with spinal cord injury in the early post-acute context. Spinal Cord, 2010; 48(4): 297-304.
14. Gotsch K., Cieza A., Stucki G.: The ICF Core Sets for stroke. J Rehabil Med, 2004; 36(Suppl 44): 135-140.
15. Stucki G., Cieza A., Geyh S. et al.: ICF Core Sets for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rehabil Med, 2004; 36(Suppl 44): 87-93.
16. Turner-Stokes L., Turner-Stokes T.: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the FIM+FAM. Br J Occup Ther, 1998; 61(3): 116-118.
17. Collin C., Wade D.T., Davies S. et al.: The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud, 1988; 10(2): 61-63.
18. Shelkey M., Wallace M.: Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living. J Gerontol Nurs, 1999.
19. Dodds T.A., Martin D.P., Stolov W.C. et al.: A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1993; 74(5): 531-536.
20. Ottenbacher K.J., Hsu Y., Granger C.V. et al.: The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1996; 77(12): 1226-1232.
21. Shah S., Vanclay F., Cooper B.: Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol,
1989; 42(8): 703-709.
22. World Health Organization: WHO Disability Assessment
Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). WHO Press, Genewa, 2010.
23. Üstün T.B., Kostanjsek N., Chatterji S. et al.: Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS
2.0. WHO, Genewa, 2010.
24. Üstün T.B., Chatterji S., Kostanjsek N. et al.: Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ, 2010; 88: 815-823.
25. Gold L.H.: The use of the WHODAS 2.0 in psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychiatr Serv, 2014.
26. Garin O., Ayuso-Mateos J.L., Almansa J. et al.: Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2010; 8: 51.
27. Kubicka L., Barłóg K.: Ocena funkcjonalna: model teoretyczny a rzeczywistość orzecznicza. Instytut Badań nad Niepełnosprawnością, Warszawa, 2024.
28. Schopler E., Lansing M.D., Reichler R.J. et al.: PEP-3: Profil Psychoedukacyjny. Wydanie polskie. GWP, Gdańsk, 2014.
29. Fulton E., Eapen V., Črnčec R., et al.: The use of the PEP-3 for assessing functional skills in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord, 2019.
30. Sundberg M.L.: VB-MAPP: Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program. AVB Press, New York, 2008.
31. Abbott Laboratories: FreeStyle Libre 2 User’s Manual. Abbott Diabetes Care, 2023.
32. Pai S., Alathur S.: Mobile health applications for physical activity: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res, 2020.
33. Celis-Morales C.A., Perez-Bravo F., Ibañez L. et al.: Objective measurement of physical activity using wearable devices. Gait Posture, 2021.
34. Prasanth L., Kaburlasos V.G., Vrochidou E. et al.: A systematic review of IMU-based gait analysis. Sensors, 2022; 22(12): 4434.
35. Tack G.R.: The role of artificial intelligence in physical rehabilitation. J Healthc Eng, 2021.
36. Mehrholz J., Thomas S., Werner C. et al.: Electromechanical- assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev, 2017.
37. Parlament Europejski i Rada (UE): Rozporządzenie w sprawie sztucznej inteligencji (Akt w sprawie sztucznej inteligencji). Dz. Urz. UE, 2024.
38. Federici S., Meloni F., Manson H. et al.: Cross-cultural adaptation of the WHODAS 2.0. Int J Rehabil Res, 2017.
39. Regnault A., Herdman M.: Cultural adaptation of health measurement scales. Routledge, New York, 2016.
40. Søberg H.L., Bautz-Holter E., Røe C.: Psychometric properties of the WHODAS 2.0 in different cultural contexts. J Clin Epidemiol,
2019.
41. Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej: Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2023 r. o świadczeniu wspierającym (Dz.U. 2023 poz. 1429). Kancelaria Sejmu, Warszawa, 2023.
42. Klimek B.: Świadczenie wspierające: opóźnienia, biurokracja i dramat osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, 2024.
43. Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich: Wystąpienie do Ministerstwa Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej w sprawie problemów wdrożenia świadczenia wspierającego. Biuro RPO, Warszawa, 2024.
44. Kurowski P., Grodzicki J.: Analiza wdrożenia systemu świadczenia wspierającego w Polsce. Raport ekspercki, 2024.
45. Zboina R., Kalinowski P., Gąsior I. et al.: Podstawy i źródła danych statystyki niepełnosprawności w Polsce. Wiad Stat, 2018; 63(2): 7-26.
46. World Health Organization: Guidance on the use of the ICF to assess and support participation in work. WHO, Genewa, 2018.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Review of Medical Practice