Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Developing valid and reliable instruments that can be used across countries is necessary. The present study aimed to test the comparability of quality of life scores across three European countries (Finland, Poland, and Spain).
Data from 9987 participants interviewed between 2011 and 2012 were employed, using nationally representative samples from the Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe project. The WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a 13-item test and was employed to assess the quality of life in the three considered countries. First of all, two models (a bifactor model and a two-correlated factor model) were proposed and tested in each country by means of confirmatory factor models. Second, measurement invariance across the three countries was tested using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for that model which showed the best fit. Finally, differences in latent mean scores across countries were analyzed.
The results indicated that the bifactor model showed more satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices than the two-correlated factor model and that the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a partially scalar invariant instrument (only two items do not meet scalar invariance). Quality of life scores were higher in Finland (considered as the reference category: mean = 0, SD = 1) than in Spain (mean = − 0.547, SD = 1.22) and Poland (mean = − 0.927, SD = 1.26).
Respondents from Finland, Poland, and Spain attribute the same meaning to the latent construct studied, and differences across countries can be due to actual differences in quality of life. According to the results, the comparability across the different considered samples is supported and the WHOQOL-AGE showed an adequate validity in terms of cross-country validation. Caution should be exercised with the two items which did not meet scalar invariance, as potential indicator of differential item functioning.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. Geneva: World Health Organization.
The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. CrossRef
The WHOQOL Group. (1996). What quality of life? World Health Organization quality of life assessment. World Health Forum, 17(4), 354–356.
The WHOQOL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585. CrossRef
The WHOQOL Group (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28(03), 551–558. CrossRef
Leonardi, M., Chatterji, S., Koskinen, S., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Haro, J. M., Frisoni, G., et al. (2014). Determinants of health and disability in ageing population:the COURAGE in Europe project (Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe). Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21(3), 193–198. CrossRef
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Pyschometrika, 58, 525–543. CrossRef
Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57(2), 289–311. CrossRef
World Health Organization. (2013). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/.
Schweizer, K., & Schreiner, M. (2010). Avoiding the effect of item wording by means of bipolar instead of unipolar items: An application to social optimism. European Journal of Personality, 24(2), 137–150.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 165(2), 233–253. CrossRef
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150. PubMed
Hox, J. J., Mass, C. J. M., & Brinkhuis, J. S. (2010). The effect of estimation method and sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling. Statistica Neerlandica, 64, 157–170. CrossRef
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. CrossRef
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions On Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. CrossRef
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. MedicalCare, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94.
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. CrossRef
Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., & Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research, 26(9) 1–14. CrossRef
Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 435–463. CrossRef
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. CrossRef
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 3(105), 456–466. CrossRef
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2001). A primer on the understanding, use, and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(4), 532–574. CrossRef
Kelley, K. (2007). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes: Theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(8), 1–24. CrossRef
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
StataCorp (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
United Nations (2013). Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
Eikemo, T. A., Huisman, M., Bambra, C., & Kunst, A. E. (2008). Health inequalities according to educational level in different welfare regimes: A comparison of 23 European countries. Sociology of health & Illness, 30(4), 565–582. CrossRef
Mellor-Marsá, B., Miret, M., Abad, F. J., Chatterji, S., Olaya, B., Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B., et al. (2016). Measurement invariance of the day reconstruction method: Results from the COURAGE in Europe project. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 1769–1787. CrossRef
Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 167–180. CrossRef
Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. New York: Routledge.
Xia, Y. (2016). Investigating the chi-square-based model-fit indexes for WLSMV and ULSMV estimators. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
- Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries
Francisco J. Abad
Josep Maria Haro
José Luis Ayuso-Mateos
Francisco Félix Caballero
- Springer International Publishing