Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2015

01-08-2015 | Brief Communication

Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples

Auteurs: Hyewon Chung, Jiseon Kim, Robert L. Askew, Salene M. W. Jones, Karon F. Cook, Dagmar Amtmann

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2015

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

Abstract

Purpose

Measurement invariance is necessary for meaningful group comparisons. The purpose of this study was to test measurement invariance of three patient-reported measures of depressive symptoms between neurologic and community samples.

Methods

The instruments tested included the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale (CESD-20), the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the patient-reported outcome measurement information system depression short form (PROMIS-D-8). Responses from a community sample were compared to responses from samples with two neurologic conditions: multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate successive levels of measurement invariance: (a) configural invariance, i.e., equivalent item factor structure between groups; (b) metric invariance, i.e., equivalent unstandardized factor loadings between groups; and (c) scalar invariance, i.e., equivalent item intercepts between groups.

Results

Results of this study supported metric invariance for the CESD-20, PHQ-9, and PROMIS-D-8 scores between the community sample and the samples with neurologic conditions. The most rigorous form of invariance (i.e., scalar) also holds for the CESD-20 and the PROMIS-D-8.

Conclusions

The current study suggests that depressive symptoms as measured by three different outcome measures have the same meaning across clinical and community samples. Thus, the use of these measures for group comparisons is supported.
Literatuur
5.
go back to reference King-Kallimanis, B. L., ter Hoeven, C. L., de Haes, H. C., Smets, E. M., Koning, C. C., & Oort, F. J. (2012). Assessing measurement invariance of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire in radiotherapy patients. Quality of Life Research, 21(10), 1745–1753. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0094-2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef King-Kallimanis, B. L., ter Hoeven, C. L., de Haes, H. C., Smets, E. M., Koning, C. C., & Oort, F. J. (2012). Assessing measurement invariance of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire in radiotherapy patients. Quality of Life Research, 21(10), 1745–1753. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-011-0094-2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge. Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.
7.
go back to reference Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(18), 1737–1744. doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1737.CrossRef Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(18), 1737–1744. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​282.​18.​1737.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283. doi:10.1177/1073191111411667.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283. doi:10.​1177/​1073191111411667​.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text revision ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text revision ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
12.
go back to reference Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., & Regier, D. A. (2013). DSM-5 Field Trials in the United States and Canada, part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 71–82. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12071000.PubMedCrossRef Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., & Regier, D. A. (2013). DSM-5 Field Trials in the United States and Canada, part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 71–82. doi:10.​1176/​appi.​ajp.​2012.​12071000.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Amtmann, D., Bamer, A. M., Cook, K. F., Askew, R. L., Noonan, V. K., & Brockway, J. A. (2012). University of Washington self-efficacy scale: A new self-efficacy scale for people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(10), 1757–1765. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.05.001.PubMedCrossRef Amtmann, D., Bamer, A. M., Cook, K. F., Askew, R. L., Noonan, V. K., & Brockway, J. A. (2012). University of Washington self-efficacy scale: A new self-efficacy scale for people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(10), 1757–1765. doi:10.​1016/​j.​apmr.​2012.​05.​001.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Krause, J. S., Saunders, L. L., Bombardier, C., & Kalpakjian, C. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9: A study of the participants from the spinal cord injury model systems. PM&R, 3(6), 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.03.003.CrossRef Krause, J. S., Saunders, L. L., Bombardier, C., & Kalpakjian, C. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9: A study of the participants from the spinal cord injury model systems. PM&R, 3(6), 533–540. doi:10.​1016/​j.​pmrj.​2011.​03.​003.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
20.
go back to reference Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual spring meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual spring meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
21.
go back to reference Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford press. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford press.
22.
go back to reference Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. London: Sage. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. London: Sage.
23.
go back to reference Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. doi:10.1037/a0026802.PubMedCrossRef Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. doi:10.​1037/​a0026802.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Metagegevens
Titel
Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples
Auteurs
Hyewon Chung
Jiseon Kim
Robert L. Askew
Salene M. W. Jones
Karon F. Cook
Dagmar Amtmann
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0927-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2015

Quality of Life Research 8/2015 Naar de uitgave