Sozańska, AgnieszkaSozańska, AgnieszkaSozański, BernardWilmowska-Pietruszyńska, AnnaDzięcioł-Anikiej, ZofiaHagner-Derengowska, MagdalenaWiśniowska-Szurlej, Agnieszka2025-09-092025-09-092025https://rdb.ur.edu.pl/handle/item/77-Background/Objectives: We compared face-to-face and telephone administration of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in community-dwelling adults aged ≥60 years. Methods: In a randomized crossover study, 239 participants from south-eastern Poland were assigned to two groups differing in interview order. The interval between assessments averaged 14.3 ± 1.3 days. Agreement was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa, ICC and Bland–Altman analysis. Results: A total of 203 participants completed both surveys. Item-level agreement ranged from 85.71% to 98.03% (κ = 0.788–0.947). The total WHODAS score showed excellent agreement (ICC = 0.986). All domains demonstrated high agreement (ICC = 0.953–0.967). Bland–Altman analysis confirmed high consistency, with only 5.42% of results outside the 95% limits. Conclusions: Telephone administration of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 provides results equivalent to face-to-face interviews in older adults and can be reliably used in clinical practice and screening when access to in-person assessment is limitedenolder adultsdisability assessmentWHODAS 2.0telephone interviewface-to-face interviewreliabilitytelemedicineraw dataset