Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

05-07-2017

Evaluating measurement invariance across assessment modes of phone interview and computer self-administered survey for the PROMIS measures in a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer survivors

Auteurs: Mian Wang, Ronald C. Chen, Deborah S. Usinger, Bryce B. Reeve

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate measurement invariance (phone interview vs computer self-administered survey) of 15 PROMIS measures responded by a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer survivors.

Methods

Participants were part of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study. Out of the 952 men who took the phone interview at 24 months post-treatment, 401 of them also completed the same survey online using a home computer. Unidimensionality of the PROMIS measures was examined using single-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models. Measurement invariance testing was conducted using longitudinal CFA via a model comparison approach. For strongly or partially strongly invariant measures, changes in the latent factors and factor autocorrelations were also estimated and tested.

Results

Six measures (sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, diarrhea, illness impact—negative, illness impact—positive, and global satisfaction with sex life) had locally dependent items, and therefore model modifications had to be made on these domains prior to measurement invariance testing. Overall, seven measures achieved strong invariance (all items had equal loadings and thresholds), and four measures achieved partial strong invariance (each measure had one item with unequal loadings and thresholds). Three measures (pain interference, interest in sexual activity, and global satisfaction with sex life) failed to establish configural invariance due to between-mode differences in factor patterns.

Conclusions

This study supports the use of phone-based live interviewers in lieu of PC-based assessment (when needed) for many of the PROMIS measures.

vorige artikel Idio Scale Judgment: evaluation of a new method for estimating responder thresholds

volgende artikel Viability of the World Health Organization quality of life measure to assess changes in quality of life following treatment for alcohol use disorder

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5), S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., 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., & PROMIS Cooperative Group. (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(5), S22–S31. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40221455

Alonso, J., Bartlett, S. J., Rose, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chaplin, J. E., Efficace, F., et al. (2013). The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 210. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hahn, E. A., Cella, D., Dobrez, D., Shiomoto, G., Marcus, E., Taylor, S. G., et al. (2004). The talking touchscreen: A new approach to outcomes assessment in low literacy. Psycho-Oncology, 13(2), 86–95. doi:10.1002/pon.719.CrossRefPubMed

Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 217–227. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0451-4.CrossRefPubMed

Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chen, R. C., Carpenter, W. R., Kim, M., Hendrix, L. H., Agans, R. P., Meyer, A. M., et al. (2015). Design of the North Carolina prostate cancer comparative effectiveness and survivorship study (NC ProCESS). Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 4(1), 3–9. doi:10.2217/cer.14.67.CrossRefPubMed

Quach, C. W., Langer, M. M., Chen, R. C., Thissen, D., Usinger, D. S., Emerson, M. A., et al. (2016). Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study. Quality of Life Research, 25(11), 2811–2823. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1325-3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jamshidian, M., & Jalal, S. (2010). Tests of homoscedasticity, normality, and missing completely at random for incomplete multivariate data. Psychometrika, 75(4), 649–674. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9175-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report. Retrieved from, https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf

12.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

13.

Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 347–363. doi:10.1177/0734282911406661.CrossRef

14.

Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles). Retrieved from, https://www.statmodel.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf

15.

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

16.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th edn). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

17.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568.CrossRefPubMed

19.

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from, http://www.R-project.org/

20.

Jamshidian, M., Jalal, S., & Jansen, C. (2014). MissMech: An R package for testing homoscedasticity, multivariate normality, and missing completely at random (MCAR). Journal of Statistical Software, 56(6), 1–31. doi:10.18637/jss.v056.i06.CrossRef

21.

van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03.CrossRef

22.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02.CrossRef

23.

semTools Contributors. (2016). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.4-14. Retrieved from, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

24.

Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 545–557. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef

26.

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2016). IRT in Mplus. Version 2. Technical report. Retrieved from, https://www.statmodel.com/download/MplusIRT.pdf

27.

File, T. (2013). Computer and internet use in the United States. Current population survey reports, P20-568. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Retrieved from, http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf

28.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., & Baer, J. (2006). A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. NCES 2006-470. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from, https://nces.ed.gov/naal/pdf/2006470_1.pdf

29.

Weinfurt, K. P., Lin, L., Bruner, D. W., Cyranowski, J. M., Dombeck, C. B., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2015). Development and initial validation of the PROMIS sexual function and satisfaction measures version 2.0. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(9), 1961–1974. doi:10.1111/jsm.12966.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Evaluating measurement invariance across assessment modes of phone interview and computer self-administered survey for the PROMIS measures in a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer survivors
Auteurs: Mian Wang
Ronald C. Chen
Deborah S. Usinger
Bryce B. Reeve
Publicatiedatum: 05-07-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1640-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2017

In-person and online social participation and emotional health in individuals with multiple sclerosis

Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review

A comparison of perceptions of quality of life among adults with spinal cord injury in the United States versus the United Kingdom

Longitudinal validity and reliability of the Myeloma Patient Outcome Scale (MyPOS) was established using traditional, generalizability and Rasch psychometric methods

Health-related quality of life in paediatric patients with congenital heart defects: association with the type of heart defect and the surgical technique

Resilience to health challenges is related to different ways of thinking: mediators of physical and emotional quality of life in a heterogeneous rare-disease cohort