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 1/2015

01-01-2015 | Quantitative Methods Special Section

Using quantitative methods within the Universalist model framework to explore the cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome instruments

Auteurs: Antoine Regnault, Michael Herdman

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2015

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

The cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical when they are used in international settings. The Universalist model of equivalence was proposed as a framework to investigate cross-cultural equivalence. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how quantitative methods can be used to investigate cross-cultural equivalence within this framework.

Methods

The six types of equivalence of the Universalist model were reviewed from a statistical perspective and statistical techniques allowing addressing the underlying question were identified. These methods are described and examples are provided of how they can be applied. An integrated pragmatic approach to the exploration of cross-cultural equivalence was developed based on these methods.

Results

The statistical techniques identified were factor analysis to explore conceptual equivalence, differential item functioning to explore semantic and item equivalence, and comparison of measurement properties for the measurement equivalence. The statistical techniques addressing operational equivalence were found to be diverse and highly specific to the operational aspect under investigation. Functional equivalence involves a comprehensive appraisal of the potential impact of the results of the other equivalences on the conclusions of the research. This structured appraisal of functional equivalence offers a framework for a comprehensive, but flexible, approach for the efficient application of statistical analyses to explore cross-cultural equivalence of PRO instruments.

Conclusion

The different types of equivalence of the Universalist model can be investigated using quantitative methods. An integrated approach, which could be used in a variety of settings, was developed to allow the whole notion of cross-cultural equivalence to be comprehensively and efficiently addressed.
vorige artikel Comparing the impact of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis on quality of life: co-calibration of the PSORIQoL and QoLIAD
volgende artikel Testing the measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 across primary cancer sites using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis
Literatuur
1.
Anderson, R. T., Aaronson, N. K., & Wilkin, D. (1993). Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 369–395.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bullinger, M., Anderson, R., Cella, D., & Aaronson, N. (1993). Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 451–459.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1993). Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 441–449.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Schmidt, S., & Bullinger, M. (2003). Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S29–S34.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology a review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131–152.CrossRef
6.
Johnson, T. P. (2006). Methods and frameworks for crosscultural measurement. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S17–S20.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J., & Badia, X. (1997). ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 6(3), 237–247.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Berry, J. W. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J., & Badia, X. (1998). A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: The Universalist approach. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 323–335.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Giroudet, C., & Mear, I. (2004). Linguistic validation manual for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments. Lyon: Mapi Research Institute.
11.
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12.
McKenna, S. P., & Doward, L. C. (2005). The translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health, 8(2), 89–91.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104.PubMedCrossRef
14.
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
15.
Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Leplege, A., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., et al. (1998). Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 913–923.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr, Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 933–944.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Auquier, P., Erhart, M., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., et al. (2007). The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1347–1356.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Robitail, S., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Simeoni, M. C., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., Power, M., et al. (2007). Testing the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1335–1345.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N. K., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1103–1115.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Skevington, S. M. (2002). Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: Observations drawn from the WHOQOL development. World health organisation quality of life assessment. Quality of Life Research, 11(2), 135–144.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bech, P., et al. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1159–1165.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., Martin, M., Houchin, C., Gawlicki, M., et al. (2009). Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value Health, 12(4), 430–440.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 573–596.CrossRef
25.
Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619.CrossRef
26.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRef
27.
Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S69–S77.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Dupuy, H. J. (1984). The psychological general well-being (PGWB) index. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies, pp. 170–183.
29.
Regnault, A. (2007). Méthodes quantitatives pour l’évaluation de la validité interculturelle des instruments de mesure subjective évaluée par les patients. Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1.
30.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 30(11), 1416–1432.CrossRef
31.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Newbury Park (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
Cohen, A. S., Kim, S. H., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 15–26.CrossRef
33.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsbaum, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53(4), 495–502.CrossRef
35.
Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 197–207.CrossRef
36.
Teresi, J. A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2000). Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: Application to cognitive assessment measures. Statistics in Medicine, 19(11–12), 1651–1683.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Teresi, J. A. (2006). Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications. Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S152–S170.
38.
Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 33–42.PubMedCrossRef
39.
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
40.
van der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G. J., Ader, H. J., & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 267–298.CrossRef
41.
Hidalgo, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903.
42.
Regnault, A., Marfatia, S., Louie, M., Mear, I., Meunier, J., & Viala-Danten, M. (2009). Satisfactory cross-cultural validity of the ACTG symptom distress module in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-naive patients. Clin Trials, 6(6), 574–584.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Ressources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
44.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 81.PubMedCentralPubMed
45.
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
46.
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
47.
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
48.
Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (1989). Detecting potentially biased test items: Comparison of IRT area and Mantel-Haenszel methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(4), 313–334.CrossRef
49.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Interpretation of differential item functioning analyses using external review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(3), 253–258.CrossRef
50.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1125–1130.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264–277.CrossRef
52.
Lee, J. W., Jones, P. S., Mineyama, Y., & Zhang, X. E. (2002). Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 25(4), 295–306.CrossRef
53.
van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 346–360.CrossRef
54.
Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Social Science & Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306.CrossRef
55.
Sarro, S., Duenas, R. M., Ramirez, N., Arranz, B., Martinez, R., Sanchez, J. M., et al. (2004). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 68(2–3), 349–356.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Tauler, E., Vilagut, G., Grau, G., Gonzalez, A., Sanchez, E., Figueras, G., et al. (2001). The spanish version of the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (PAQLQ): Metric characteristics and equivalence with the original version. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 81–91.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Feldt, L. S., & Kim, S. (2006). Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 589–600.CrossRef
58.
Fledt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha or Kruder-Richardson coefficient twenty is the same for two tests. Psychometrika, 34, 357–370.
59.
Vangeneugden, T., Laenen, A., Geys, H., Renard, D., & Molenberghs, G. (2005). Applying concepts of generalizability theory on clinical trial data to investigate sources of variation and their impact on reliability. Biometrics, 61(1), 295–304.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Pae, T. I., & Park, G. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and differential test functioning. Language Testing, 23(4), 475–496.CrossRef
61.
Roznowski, M., & Reith, J. (1999). Examining the measurement quality of tests containing differentially functioning items: Do biased items result in poor measurement? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 248–269.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Using quantitative methods within the Universalist model framework to explore the cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome instruments
Auteurs
Antoine Regnault
Michael Herdman
Publicatiedatum
01-01-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0722-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2015

Quality of Life Research 1/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Validation of a pediatric oral health-related quality of life scale in Navajo children

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale for early post-treatment breast cancer survivors

OriginalPaper

The associations among hand dexterity, functional performance, and quality of life in diabetic patients with neuropathic hand from objective- and patient-perceived measurements

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in indigenous and non-indigenous older adults: assessing the CASP-12 factor structure and identifying a brief CASP-3

Quantitative Methods Special Section

Modeling health-related quality of life in people recovering from stroke

Brief Communication

Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires