Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2008

01-04-2008

Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability

Auteurs: Julio Cabrero-García, José Antonio López-Pina

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2008

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objective

To determine (i) the dimensional invariance of instrumental and basic activities of daily living (IADL/ADL) by gender subgroups, and (ii) the extent to which ADL dimensionality varies with the inclusion or exclusion of nondisabled people.

Methods

Data were taken from the 1999 Spanish Survey on Disability, Impairment and State of Health. The analysis focussed on 6,522 people aged over 65 years who received help to perform or were unable to perform IADL/ADL items. Unidimensional and multidimensional item response theory (IRT) models were applied to this sample.

Results

In the female sample, IADL/ADL items formed a scale with sufficient unidimensionality to fit a two-parameter logistic IRT model. In the male sample, the structure was bidimensional: self-care and mobility, and household activities. When the sample was composed of IADL/ADL disabled people, ADL items formed a unidimensional scale; when it was composed only of ADL disabled people, they formed a bidimensional structure: self-care and mobility.

Conclusions

IADL/ADL items can be combined in a single scale to measure severity of functional disability in females, but not in males. Separate aggregated scores must be considered for each subdomain, basic mobility and self-care, in order to measure the severity of ADL disability.
vorige artikel The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores
volgende artikel Validation of the French version of the colorectal-specific quality-of-life questionnaires EORTC QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Spector, W. D., & Fleishman, J. A. (1998). Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, S46–S57.
2.
Fleishman, J. A., Spector, W. D., & Altman, B. (2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, S275–S284.
3.
Lindeboom, R., Vermeulen, M., Holman, R., & De Haan, R. J. (2003). Activities of daily living instruments:Optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology, 60, 738–742.PubMed
4.
Avlund, K. (1997). Methodological challenges in measurements of functional ability in gerontological research. A review. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 9, 164–174.
5.
Kempen, G. I., Miedema, I., Ormel, J., & Molenaar, W. (1996). The assessment of disability with the Groningen activity restriction scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 1601–1610.CrossRef
6.
Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Bond, T. L. Y., & Ni, P. (2004). Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement. Medical Care, 42, I62–I72.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179–186.PubMed
8.
Spector, W. D., Katz, S., Murphy, J. B., & Fulton, J. P. (1987). The hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of Chronical Disease, 40, 481–489.CrossRef
9.
Breithaupt, K., & McDowell, I. (2001). Considerations for measuring functioning of the elderly: IRM dimensionality and scaling analysis. Heath Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 37–50.CrossRef
10.
Saliba, D., Orlando, M., Wenger, N. S., Hays, R. D., & Rubenstein, L. Z. (2002) Identifying a short functional disability screen for older persons. Journals of Gerontology Serie A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 55, M750–M756.
11.
Kempen, G. I. J. M., Myers, A. M., & Powell, L. E. (1995). Hierarchical structure in ADL and IADL: Analytical assumptions and applications for clinicians and researchers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiolgy, 48, 1299–1305.CrossRef
12.
Thomas, V. S., Rockwood, K., & McDowell, I. M. (1998). Multidimensionality in instrumental and basic activities of daily living. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 315–321.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1994). Gender, race, and health: The structure of health status among older adults. The Gerontologist, 34, 24–35.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ng, T. P., Niti, M., Chiam, P. Ch., & Kua, E. H. (2006). Physical and cognitive domains of the instrumental activities of daily living: Validation in a multiethnic population of Asian older adults. Journals of Gerontology Serie A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 61, 726–735.
15.
Allen, S. M., Mor, V., Raveis, V., & Houts. P. (1993). Measurement of need for assistance with daily activities: Quantifying the influence of gender roles. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 48, 204–211.
16.
Niti, M., Ng, T. P., Chiam, P. C, & Kua, E. H. (2007). Item response bias was present in instrumental activity of daily living scale in Asian older adults. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 366–374.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 33–42.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S. G., Muraki, E., Wilson, D. T., & Wood, R. (2003). TESTFACT [computer software]. Version 4.0. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
19.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2001). Encuesta sobre discapacidades, deficiencias y estado de salud 1999. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
20.
McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99–114.CrossRef
21.
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19–31.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lai, J. S., Crane, P. K., & Cella, D. (2006). Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1179–1190.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S78–S94.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S39–S49.PubMedCrossRef
25.
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Verbrugge, L. M., & Sevak, P. (2002). Use, type, and efficacy of assistance for disability. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, S366–S379.
27.
Lazaridis, E. N., Rudberg, M. A., Furner, S. E., & Cassel, C. K. (1994). Do activities of daily living have a hierarchical structure? An analysis using the longitudinal study of aging. Journal of Gerontology, 49, M47–M51.PubMed
28.
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
29.
Schumacker, R. E., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Reliability. A Rasch perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 394–409.CrossRef
30.
Jette, A. M. (1994). How measurement techniques influence estimates of disability in older populations. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 937–942.CrossRef
31.
Jenkins, C. L., & Laditka, S. B. (2003). A comparative analysis of disability measures and their relation to home health care use. Home Health Care Services Quaterly, 22, 21–37.CrossRef
32.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
33.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164.CrossRef
34.
Hambleton, R. L., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Pack, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
35.
Bryce, B. R., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. L., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., Liu, H., Gershon, R., Reise, S. P., Lai, J., & Cella, D. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22–S31.CrossRef
36.
Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of binary data test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 159–203.CrossRef
37.
Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S69–S77.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hoyle, R. H., & Duball, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory, confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 301–315). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
39.
Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
40.
Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
41.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ConQuest [computer software]. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
42.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
Verbrugge, L. M., Yang, L. S., & Juarez, L. (2004). Severity, timing, and structure of disability. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, 49, 110–121.PubMedCrossRef
44.
World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO.
45.
Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self-maintenance: Activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31, 721–727.PubMed
46.
Dunlop, D. D., Hughes, S. L., & Manheim, L. M. (1997). Disability in activities of daily living: Patterns of change and a hierarchy of disability. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 378–383.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Guralnik, J. M., Fried, L. P., & Salive, M. E. (1996). Disability as a public health outcome in the aging population. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 25–46.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Picavet, H. S., & Van den Bos, G. A. (1996). Comparing survey data on functional disability: The impact of some methodological differences. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 50, 86–93.PubMed
49.
Rodgers, W., & Miller, B. (1997). A comparative analysis of ADL questions in surveys of older people. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(Spec No), 21–36.
50.
Freedman, V. A. (2000). Implications of asking “ambiguous” difficulty questions: an analysis of the second wave of the asset and health dynamics of the oldest old study. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, S288–S297.
51.
Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., & Klapp, B. F. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptative test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14, 2277–2291.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64.CrossRef
53.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X-2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability
Auteurs
Julio Cabrero-García
José Antonio López-Pina
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2008
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9313-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2008

Quality of Life Research 3/2008 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

The adaptation into Spanish of the Coddington Life Events Scales (CLES)

OriginalPaper

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

OriginalPaper

The effects of exercise training on quality of life in HAART-treated HIV-positive Rwandan subjects with body fat redistribution

OriginalPaper

The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status

OriginalPaper

Improving quality of life using compound mind-body therapies: evaluation of a course intervention with body movement and breath therapy, guided imagery, chakra experiencing and mindfulness meditation

OriginalPaper

Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders