Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
On behalf of the Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG) CALD team.
The PoCoG CALD team also includes: Ms Lynley Aldridge, Dr Melanie Bell, Dr Priya Duggal, Prof Afaf Girgis, A/Prof Michael Jefford, A/Prof Penny Schofield, A/Prof Bettina Meiser, Prof Elizabeth Lobb and Prof Patsy Yates.
The purpose of this study was to assess the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey.
A cross-sectional study was conducted among immigrants of Arabic-, Chinese- and Greek-speaking backgrounds, and Anglo-Australian-born controls, recruited through Cancer Registries (n = 591) and oncology clinics (n = 900). The survey included four subscales, with newly developed items addressing unmet need in culturally competent health information and patient support (CCHIPS), and items adapted from existing questionnaires addressing physical and daily living (PDL), sexuality (SEX) and survivorship (SURV) unmet need. The survey was translated into Arabic, Chinese and Greek. Rasch analysis was carried out on the four domains.
Whilst many items were mistargeted to less prevalent areas of unmet need, causing substantial floor effects in person estimates, reliability indices were acceptable. The CCHIPS domain showed differential item functioning (DIF) for cultural background and language, and the PDL domain showed DIF for treatment phase and gender. The results for SEX and SURV domains were limited by floor effects and missing responses. All domains showed adequate fit to the model after DIF was resolved and a small number of items were deleted.
The study highlights the intricacies in designing a culturally competent survey that can be applied to culturally and linguistically diverse groups across different treatment contexts. Overall, the results demonstrate that this survey is somewhat invariant with respect to these factors. Future refinements are suggested to enhance the survey’s cultural competence and general validity.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Butow, P. N., Sze, M., Duggal-Beri, P., Mikhail, M., Eisenbruch, M., et al. (2011). From inside the bubble: Migrants’ perceptions of communication with the cancer team. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(2), 281–290. CrossRef
Moore, R., & Butow, P. (2005). Culture and oncology: Impact of context effects. In D. Speigel (Ed.), Cancer, communication and culture. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J.-L., et al. (2004). Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: The PRO-ESOR project. Medical Care, 42(1), I37–I48. PubMed
Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Inc.
Baranik, L. E., Meade, A. W., Lakey, C. E., Lance, C. E., Hu, C., et al. (2008). Examining the differential item functioning of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale across eight countries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1867–1904. CrossRef
Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Does item-level DIF manifest itself in scale-level analyses? Implications for translating language tests. Language Testing, 20(2), 136–147. CrossRef
Salzberger, T., Sinkovics, R. R., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1999). Data equivalence in cross-cultural research: A comparison of classical test theory and latent trait theory based approaches. Australasian Marketing Journal, 7(2), 23–38. CrossRef
Bell, M. L., Butow, P. N., and Goldstein, D. (2013). Informatively missing quality of life and unmet needs sex data for immigrant and Anglo-Australian cancer patients and survivors. Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 1–4.
Schuman, H. (1966). The random probe: A technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions. American Sociological Review, 31(2), 218–222.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). Rasch models for measurement: RUMM2030. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
Linacre, M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328.
Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Effects of varying magnitude and patterns of response dependence in the unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(2), 105–124. PubMed
Andrich, D., & Hagquist, C. (2012). Real and artificial differential item functioning. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(3), 387–416. CrossRef
Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Formalising dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(3), 200–215. PubMed
Andrich, D. (2005). The Rasch model explained. In S. Alagumalai, D. Durtis, & N. Hungi (Eds.), Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars (pp. 308–328). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
McKenna, S. P., Wilburn, J., Thorsen, H., & Brodersen, J. (2012). Adapting patient-reported outcome measures for use in new languages and cultures. In K. B. Christensen, S. Kreiner, & M. Mesbah (Eds.), Rasch models in health (pp. 303–315). London, UK: Wiley.
ABS, Australian Social Trends (4102.0). A.B.o. Statistics, Editor 2010, AGPS: Canberra.
Hobart, J. C. (2003). Rating scales for neurologists. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 74, 22–26. CrossRef
- Assessing the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey for immigrant and Australian-born cancer patients: a Rasch analysis
J. A. McGrane
P. N. Butow
M. T. King
- Springer International Publishing