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 10/2014

01-12-2014 | Brief Communication

A comparison of three methods of assessing differential item functioning (DIF) in the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale: ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and the Mantel chi-square procedure

Auteurs: Isobel M. Cameron, Neil W. Scott, Mats Adler, Ian C. Reid

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2014

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

Purpose

It is important for clinical practice and research that measurement scales of well-being and quality of life exhibit only minimal differential item functioning (DIF). DIF occurs where different groups of people endorse items in a scale to different extents after being matched by the intended scale attribute. We investigate the equivalence or otherwise of common methods of assessing DIF.

Method

Three methods of measuring age- and sex-related DIF (ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and Mantel χ2 procedure) were applied to Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) data pertaining to a sample of 1,068 patients consulting primary care practitioners.

Results

Three items were flagged by all three approaches as having either age- or sex-related DIF with a consistent direction of effect; a further three items identified did not meet stricter criteria for important DIF using at least one method. When applying strict criteria for significant DIF, ordinal logistic regression was slightly less sensitive.

Conclusions

Ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and contingency table methods yielded consistent results when identifying DIF in the HADS depression and HADS anxiety scales. Regardless of methods applied, investigators should use a combination of statistical significance, magnitude of the DIF effect and investigator judgement when interpreting the results.
vorige artikel Longitudinal quality of life data: a comparison of continuous and ordinal approaches
volgende artikel Health status profiles in community-dwelling elderly using self-reported health indicators: a latent class analysis
Literatuur
1.
Warner, J. (2004). Clinicians’ guide to evaluating diagnostic and screening tests in psychiatry. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10(6), 446–454.CrossRef
2.
Crawford, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., & Slick, D. J. (2009). On percentile norms in neuropsychology: Proposed reporting standards and methods for quantifying the uncertainty over the percentile ranks of test scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1173–1195.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., De Graaf, R., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8(81), 1–9.
4.
Isacsson, G., Adler, M. (2011) Randomized clinical trials underestimate the efficacy of antidepressants in less severe depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125(8), 453–459.
5.
Cameron, I. M., Crawford, J. R., Lawton, K., & Reid, I. C. (2013). Differential item functioning of the HADS and PHQ-9: An investigation of age, gender and educational background in a clinical UK primary care sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 147(1–3), 262–268.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44.CrossRef
7.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Herrmann, C. (1997). International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—a review of validation data and clinical results. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 17–41.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Cameron, I. M., Lawton, K., & Reid, I. C. (2009). Appropriateness of antidepressant prescribing: An observational study in a Scottish primary-care setting. British Journal of General Practice, 59, 644–649.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
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
11.
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
12.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defense Headquarters.
13.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying The Rasch Model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc.
14.
Linacre, J. M. (2010). Winsteps Rash Measurement, 3.70.0.
15.
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
16.
Penfield, R. D. (2007) DIFAS 4.0: Differential item functioning analysis system user’s manual.
17.
Mantel, N. (1963). Chi square tests with one degree of freedom: Extension of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690–700.
18.
Liu, I., & Agresti, A. (1996). Mantel-Haenszel-type inference for cumulative odds ratios with a stratified ordinal response. Biometrics, 52, 1223–1234.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2003). Applying the Liu-Agresti estimator of the cumulative common odds ratio to DIF detection in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 353–370.CrossRef
20.
Lambert, S., Pallant, J. F., Girgis, A. (2010) Rasch analysis of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale among caregivers of cancer survivors: Implications for its use in psycho-oncology. Psycho-Oncology , 20(9), 919–925.
21.
Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 1–18.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yang, F. M., & Jones, R. N. (2007). Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) item response bias found with Mantel-Haenszel method was successfully replicated using latent variable modeling. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(11), 1195–1200.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
Cole, S. R., Kawachi, I., Maller, S. J., & Berkman, L. F. (2000). Test of item-response bias in the CES-D scale. Experience from the New Haven EPESE study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(3), 285–289.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Huang, F. Y., Chung, H., Kroenke, K., Dellucchi, K. L., & Spitzer, R. L. (2006). Using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 to measure depression among racially and ethnically diverse primary care patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 547–552.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
25.
Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (2006) Differential item functioning on the Mini-Mental State Examination. An application of the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization procedures. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3):S107–S114.
26.
Jones, R. N. (2006). Identification of measurement differences between English and Spanish language versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Detecting differential item functioning using MIMIC modeling. Medial Care, 44(11 Suppl 3):S124–S133.
27.
Orlando Edelen, M. O., Thissen, D., Teresi, J. A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2006) Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach. Application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3):S134–S142.
28.
Morales, L. S., Flowers, C., Gutierrez, P., Kleinman, M., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). Item and scale differential functioning of the Mini-Mental State Exam assessed using the Differential Item and Test Functioning (DFIT) Framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S143–S151.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
A comparison of three methods of assessing differential item functioning (DIF) in the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale: ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and the Mantel chi-square procedure
Auteurs
Isobel M. Cameron
Neil W. Scott
Mats Adler
Ian C. Reid
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0719-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2014

Quality of Life Research 10/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Reliability and validity of a survey to measure bowel function and quality of life in long-term rectal cancer survivors

OriginalPaper

Discriminatory power of a 25-item distress screening tool: a cross-sectional survey of 251 cancer survivors

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal quality of life data: a comparison of continuous and ordinal approaches

Brief Communication

Validation of the MOS Social Support Survey 6-item (MOS-SSS-6) measure with two large population-based samples of Australian women

OriginalPaper

Conceptualizing disability in US national surveys: application of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework

OriginalPaper

Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment