Measuring Poverty’s Effect on the Mental Health of People with Disabilities
Please revise taking out any reference to Native Americans and make the paper purely about Measuring Poverty’s Effect on the Mental Health of Adults with Disabilities.
Paper should be no longer that 6 pages.
Be sure to reference all information on validity and reliability.
Please be sure to use references to support any claims.
Please be sure to follow APA 7th addition especially level headings.
Also be sure the the references list is in line with APA 7th Edition
Part 1:
Considering the problem of Poverty's Effect on the mental health of Adults with Disabilities
1. determine how to assess poverty’s effect(s) on mental health (societal or individual) by selecting three assessment tools that may be beneficial in measuring these effects. Be sure that you are measuring the effect of poverty on mental health of Adults with Disabilities (be sure to include references in this section according to APA 7th Edition).
Part 2
1. Research three (3) psychological assessment tools to determine the best one to measure the effect of poverty on mental health Among Adults with Disabilities (be sure to include references in this section according to APA 7th Edition).
2. Justify the selection of each assessment tool as a measure for the problem or issue you identified in Part 1 (be sure to include references in this section according to APA 7th Edition).
Part 3
1. For each assessment tool:
1. Discuss the validity and reliability of each assessment tool (be sure to include references in this section according to APA 7th Edition)
2. Compare and contrast these three assessments tools (be sure to include references in this section according to APA 7th Edition)
3. Justify your choice of what you consider the best tool to capture poverty (WHODAS 2.0: include that APA has suggested it as an "emerging measure".
Sure that the beginning paragraph is strong with good supportive citations and references.
Grading Criteria
1. Described a clearly identified problem or issue, including information to understand the impact on the individual or society as a whole.
2. Assessment of the problem or issue was operationally defined and could be understood to fully measure the effects on mental health.
3. The validity and reliability of each of the three assessment tools were thoroughly evaluated and applicable to assess the stated problem or issue.
4. The comparison of the three assessment tools was thorough and accurate.
5. All work was outstanding in 7th edition, APA style and written at the graduate level.
6. Demonstrated exemplary use and integration of current research and cited them using 7th ed APA formatting and included them in the reference list.
7. Minimal use of direct quotations was able to construct arguments and demonstrate critical thinking skills and originality of thought.
8. Demonstrated a concise, organized, well supported and professionally written assignment.
Measuring Poverty’s Effect on the Mental Health of People with Disabilities
Poverty Among Persons with Disabilities (PWDs)
Unemployment in PWDs
With the utmost perplexity and concern, we observe the dire employment situation for PWDs worldwide. In developing countries, a staggering 80% to 90% of individuals with disabilities of working age remain unemployed, leaving them marginalized and overlooked. Even in industrialized nations, where one might expect better opportunities, the figure remains disheartening, ranging from 50% to 70% (United Nations Department of Public Affairs, 2007).
Asia and the Pacific
In the vast expanse of Asia and the Pacific, 370 million people grapple with disabilities, with a significant 238 million belonging to the working-age group. It is with the greatest perplexity and dismay that we witness their plight, as their unemployment rate consistently doubles that of the general population and, in some cases, soars to an astonishing 80% or beyond (United Nations Department of Public Affairs, 2007).
European Union
In the enigmatic realm of the European Union, we encounter approximately 40 million individuals grappling with disabilities, with a significant proportion, around 43% to 54%, belonging to the working-age segment back in 1998. The most perplexing and disconcerting revelation is that these individuals with disabilities face a staggering two to three times higher likelihood of unemployment than their non-disabled peers (United Nations Department of Public Affairs, 2007).
Most unemployed respondents with disabilities expressed their strong desire to work but faced challenges finding suitable job opportunities (Beatty et al., 2019).
Psychological Assessment Tools
In line with the information stated, assessing the mental health and social well-being of PWDs living in poverty is essential. Many psychological assessment tools can be used to evaluate the connection between poverty and disability, including the Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), and the General Health Questionnaire 28 (GHQ-28).
Part II
Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool (AHC-HRSN)
The AHC-HRSN is a screening tool comprised of 10 primary items and an additional set of 16 questions. It aims to detect the specific needs of patients that can be addressed through community services. These needs are categorized into four domains: economic stability, social and community context, neighborhood and physical environment, and food (Kaiser Permanente, 2020; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2019).
Importance of AHC-HRSN in Assessing the Impact of Poverty Among PWDs
Poverty can intensify mental health challenges in individuals with disabilities. They must endure additional stressors and encounter significant barriers in accessing crucial mental health resources (Sylvestre et al., 2018). The screening tool's all-encompassing evaluation serves as a ray of hope, aiding in identifying mental health needs and enabling timely intervention and support. It is a disheartening revelation that social determinants, including housing, food security, and social support, profoundly influence mental health. By centering on health-related social needs, the screening tool sheds light on the intricate web of factors impacting the mental well-being of those with disabilities who are burdened by poverty.
World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)
WHODAS 2.0 is a comprehensive tool designed to evaluate six domains of functioning: cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along with others, life activities (household and work-related), and participation in society. It assesses an individual's capacity to complete tasks, engage in social interactions, and actively participate within these domains. The scale consists of 36 items encompassing various aspects of functioning and disability (World Health Organization, 2010; Sedano-Capdevila et al., 2018).
Importance of WHODAS 2.0 in Assessing the Effect of Poverty Among PWDs
PWDs frequently necessitate specific healthcare services, assistive devices, therapies, and personal assistance (de Witte et al., 2018). These additional requirements incur substantial financial costs for individuals and their families, restricting their capacity to fulfill other fundamental needs (Bright et al., 2018). Consequently, this financial strain significantly heightens the likelihood of experiencing poverty (World Health Organization, 2023). By pinpointing the domains in which individuals encounter the most significant challenges, using WHODAS 2.0, professionals can devise precise tactics to tackle those difficulties, foster self-reliance, enhance functional abilities, and ultimately enhance overall well-being (Ferrer et al., 2019). This personalized approach is indispensable in effectively addressing the distinctive circumstances and limitations arising from poverty and disability.
General Health Questionnaire 28 (GHQ-28)
The GHQ-28, a self-administered tool suitable for research purposes, offers a more comprehensive assessment than a single severity score. It was designed to cover four key domains: somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression. The GHQ-28 specifically targets disruptions in normal functioning that impede individuals from carrying out their regular healthy activities. The questionnaire captures the emergence of distressing phenomena experienced within the past few weeks (Hjelle et al., 2019; Ames-Guerrero et al., 2020; Tugnoli et al., 2022).
Importance of GHQ-28 in Assessing the Impact of Poverty Among PWDs
The impact of poverty on individuals with disabilities goes beyond financial constraints, as it can give rise to psychological distress due to increased stressors and limited access to crucial resources. The GHQ-28 serves as a valuable tool in detecting psychological issues like anxiety and depression, which may intensify the adverse effects of poverty (Lorca et al., 2021).
Part III
Validity and Reliability
Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool (AHC-HRSN)
In a study conducted by Lewis et al. (2020), the AHC-HRSN tool was examined for its concurrent validity. The study found that the percentage of participants reporting social risks ranged from 7% to 29%. Notably, there was significant agreement between the AHC-HRSN items and measures of food insecurity. No study has conducted a test on its reliability.
World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)
Concerning face validity, which examines whether an instrument accurately measures its intended construct, a substantial proportion of experts, accounting for 64%, agreed that the content of WHODAS 2.0 effectively captures the concept of disability as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). This agreement among experts indicates a strong alignment between the instrument's content and the intended measurement of disability. Consequently, the test-retest reliability of WHODAS 2.0 was assessed and yielded significant results. At the item level, the intra-class coefficient ranged from 0.69 to 0.89, indicating good reliability. At the domain level, the coefficient ranged from 0.93 to 0.96, demonstrating high reliability. Moreover, an impressive coefficient of 0.98 was observed at the overall level, indicating exc...