Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-10-2009

Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew

Auteurs: Dennis L. Hart, Daniel Deutscher, Paul K. Crane, Ying-Chih Wang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2009

Abstract

Objective

We examined the presence and impact of differential item functioning (DIF) in a set of knee-specific functional status (FS) items administered using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) among English (United States) and Hebrew (Israel) speaking patients receiving therapy for knee impairments. DIF occurs in an item if probabilities of endorsing responses differ across groups after controlling for the FS measured.

Methods

We analyzed data from 28,320 patients (14,160 U.S., 14,160 Israel) who completed the knee-specific CAT. Items were assessed for DIF by gender, age, symptom acuity, surgical history, exercise history, and language spoken using a hybrid technique that combines multiple ordinal logistic regression and item response theory FS estimates.

Results

Several items had non-uniform DIF for covariates including language, but unadjusted and DIF-adjusted functional status estimates were in strong concordance [ICC(2,1) values ≥0.97], and differences between unadjusted and adjusted FS scores represented <0.4% of the unadjusted FS standard deviation.

Conclusions

Statistically significant DIF was identified in some items but represented negligible clinical impact. Results suggested no need to adjust items for DIF when assessing FS outcomes across groups of patients with knee impairments who answer the knee CAT items in English in the United States or Hebrew in Israel. These findings suggest negligible differences in cultural perceptions between English and Hebrew wording of these knee-specific CAT FS items.

vorige artikel Prostate cancer-specific anxiety in Dutch patients on active surveillance: validation of the memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer

volgende artikel Using cognitive interviews to evaluate items for measuring sexual functioning across cancer populations: improvements and remaining challenges

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

American Physical Therapy Association. (2001). Guide to physical therapist practice. Physical Therapy, 81(1), 1–768.

Swinkels, I. C., Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., van den Bosch, W. J., Dekker, J., de Bakker, D. H., et al. (2008). Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1), 163.PubMedCrossRef

Carter, S. K., & Rizzo, J. A. (2007). Use of outpatient physical therapy services by people with musculoskeletal conditions. Physical Therapy, 87(5), 497–512.PubMed

MedPAC. (2006). Toward better value in purchasing outpatient therapy services, (Chap. 6). Report to the Congress: Increasing the value of medicare. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, pp. 117–141.

World Confederation for Physical Therapy. (2007). Declarations of Principle and Position Statements. Available at: www.wcpt.org/policies/principles/index.php. Accessed August 11, 2008.

Hahn, E. A., Holzner, B., Kemmler, G., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Hudgens, S. A., & Cella, D. (2005). Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(2), 233–259.CrossRef

Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J. L., Slade, A., 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 Suppl), I37–I48.PubMed

Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Aaronson, N., Conroy, T., Cull, A., et al. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 373–385.PubMedCrossRef

Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28–II42.PubMed

10.

Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Convening health outcomes methodologists. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II3–II6.PubMed

11.

van der Linden, W., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.

12.

Hart, D. L., Mioduski, J. E., & Stratford, P. W. (2005). Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(6), 629–638.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hart, D. L., Wang, Y. C., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2008). Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(11), 1113–1124.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing. A primer (2nd ed.). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15.

Hart, D. L., Wang, Y. C., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2008). Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Quality of Life Research, 17(8), 1081–1091.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., Tao, W., Ni, P., Moed, R., Meyers, D., et al. (2007). Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Physical Therapy, 87(4), 385–398.PubMed

17.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Steinberg, L., Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (2000). Validity. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 185–229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 287–334.

21.

Custers, J. W., Hoijtink, H., van der Net, J., & Helders, P. J. (2000). Cultural differences in functional status measurement: Analyses of person fit according to the Rasch model. Quality of Life Research, 9(5), 571–578.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Lundgren-Nilsson, A., Grimby, G., Ring, H., Tesio, L., Lawton, G., Slade, A., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: A study using Rasch analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(1), 23–31.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Swinkels, I. C. S., van den Ende, C. H. M., de Bakker, D., van der Wees, J., Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., et al. (2007). Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 23(3), 153–167.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Hart, D. L., & Connolly, J. B. (2006). Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B services. Grant #18-P-93066/9-01. Health & Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

25.

Deutscher, D., Hart, D. L., Dickstein, R., Horn, S. D., & Gutvirtz, M. (2008). Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Physical Therapy, 88(2), 270–285.PubMed

26.

Binkley, J. M., Stratford, P. W., Lott, S. A., & Riddle, D. L. (1999). The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Physical Therapy, 79(4), 371–383.PubMed

27.

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.CrossRef

28.

Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 101–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

29.

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

30.

Linacre, J. M. (1998). Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(2), 638.

31.

Sands, W. A., Waters, B. K., & McBride, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Computerized adaptive testing. From inquiry to operation. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

32.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

33.

Lewin-Epstein, N., Sagiv-Schifter, T., Shabtai, E. L., & Shmueli, A. (1998). Validation of the 36-item short-form Health Survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of Israel. Medical Care, 36(9), 1361–1370.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psycometrika. Monograph 17.

35.

Linacre, J. M. (2008). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago, IL: MESA.

36.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

37.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Bjorner, J. B., Kreiner, S., Ware, J. E., Damsgaard, M. T., & Bech, P. (1998). Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1189–1202.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the Graded Response Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143.CrossRef

40.

Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., Klapp, B. F., & Rose, M. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2277–2291.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Deutscher, D., Horn, S. D., Dickstein, R., Hart, D. L., Smout, R. J., Gutvirtz, M., et al. (2009). Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. (in press).

42.

Crane, P. K., Cetin, K., Cook, K. F., Johnson, K., Deyo, R., & Amtmann, D. (2007). Differential item functioning impact in a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 981–990.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S115–S123.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Narasimhalu, K., Lai, J. S., & Cella, D. (2007). Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: The functional assessment of cancer therapy. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 101–114.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Cook, K., Cella, D., Narasimhalu, K., et al. (2007). A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 69–84.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Crane, P. K., Hart, D. L., Gibbons, L. E., & Cook, K. F. (2006). A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(5), 478–484.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Crane, P. K., van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256.PubMedCrossRef

48.

PARSCALE for Windows. (2003). v 4.1 Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

49.

Stata Statistical Software. (2007). Release 9.2. College Station, TX.

50.

Hart, D. L., Mioduski, J. E., Werneke, M. W., & Stratford, P. W. (2006). Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(9), 947–956.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Hart, D. L., Werneke, M. W., George, S. Z., Matheson, J. W., Wang, Y. C., Cook, K. F., et al. (2009) Screening for elevated levels of fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work or physical activities in patients receiving outpatient therapy. Physical Therapy, 89(8), 770–785.PubMed

52.

Wang, Y. C., Hart, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2009). Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test generated outcomes measures in patients with knee impairments. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. (in press).

53.

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., Crane, P. K., Deyo, R. A., Johnson, K. L., & Amtmann, D. (2008). Letting the CAT out of the bag: comparing computer adaptive tests and an 11-item short form of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 33(12), 1378–1383.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Elhan, A. H., Oztuna, D., Sutlay, S., Kucukdeveci, A., & Tennant, A. (2008). An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 166.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Nandakumar, R., & Roussos, L. (2001). CATSIB: A modified SIBTEST procedure to detect differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Report no. LSAC-R-97-11. Princeton, NJ: Law School Admission Council.

57.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

58.

Hambleton, R. K. (2006). Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S182–S188.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Lei, P. W., Chen, S. Y., & Yu, L. (2006). Comparing methods of assessing differential item functioning in a computerized adaptive testing environment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(3), 245–264.CrossRef

61.

Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993). Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138(11), 923–936.PubMed

Titel: Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew
Auteurs: Dennis L. Hart
Daniel Deutscher
Paul K. Crane
Ying-Chih Wang
Publicatiedatum: 01-10-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9517-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2009

Impact of demographic factors, medication and symptoms on disease-specific quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease

Prostate cancer-specific anxiety in Dutch patients on active surveillance: validation of the memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer

Somatization is associated with physical health-related quality of life independent of anxiety and depression in cancer, glaucoma and rheumatological disorders

Negative and positive affect are independently associated with patient-reported health status following percutaneous coronary intervention

Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments

Responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score and the SF-36: five years after total hip arthroplasty