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 4/2018

16-11-2017

Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries

Auteurs: David Santos, Francisco J. Abad, Marta Miret, Somnath Chatterji, Beatriz Olaya, Katarzyna Zawisza, Seppo Koskinen, Matilde Leonardi, Josep Maria Haro, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Francisco Félix Caballero

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2018

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

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).

Method

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.
vorige artikel Measurement invariance and general population reference values of the PROMIS Profile 29 in the UK, France, and Germany
volgende artikel Adjusting for cross-cultural differences in computer-adaptive tests of quality of life
Literatuur
1.
World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. Geneva: World Health Organization.
2.
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
3.
The WHOQOL Group. (1996). What quality of life? World Health Organization quality of life assessment. World Health Forum, 17(4), 354–356.
4.
Skevington, S. M. (2002). Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: observations drawn from the WHOQOL development. Quality of Life Research, 11(2), 135–144.CrossRefPubMed
5.
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
6.
The WHOQOL Group (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28(03), 551–558.CrossRef
7.
Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Power, M., Quinn, K., & Schmidt, S. (2005). Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2197–2214.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Schmidt, S., Mühlan, H., & Power, M. (2006). The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. The European Journal of Public Health, 16(4), 420–428.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fang, J., Power, M., Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Hao, Y., & Chatterji, S. (2012). Development of short versions for the WHOQOL-OLD module. The Gerontologist, 52(1), 66–78.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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
12.
Caballero, F. F., Miret, M., Power, M., Chatterji, S., Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B., Koskinen, S., et al. (2013). Validation of an instrument to evaluate quality of life in the aging population: WHOQOL-AGE. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 177.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
13.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Pyschometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRef
14.
Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57(2), 289–311.CrossRef
15.
Miret, M., Caballero, F. F., Chatterji, S., Olaya, B., Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B., Koskinen, S., et al. (2014). Health and happiness: cross-sectional household surveys in Finland, Poland and Spain. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92(10), 716–725.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
16.
17.
Rey, J. J., Abad, F. J., Barrada, J. R., Garrido, L. E., & Ponsoda, V. (2014). The impact of ambiguous response categories on the factor structure of the GHQ–12. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 1021–1030.CrossRefPubMed
18.
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.
19.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6(5), 393–406.CrossRefPubMed
21.
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
22.
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150.PubMed
23.
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
24.
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 19–31.CrossRefPubMed
25.
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
26.
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
27.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions On Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.CrossRef
29.
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.
30.
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
31.
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
32.
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
33.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRef
34.
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
35.
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
36.
Kelley, K. (2007). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes: Theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(8), 1–24.CrossRef
37.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
38.
StataCorp (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
39.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(3), 217–222.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
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
42.
Abad, F. J., Sorrel, M. A., Román, F. J., & Colom, R. (2016). The relationships between WAIS-IV factor index scores and educational level: A bifactor model approach. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 987–1000.CrossRefPubMed
43.
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
44.
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
45.
Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. New York: Routledge.
46.
Xia, Y. (2016). Investigating the chi-square-based model-fit indexes for WLSMV and ULSMV estimators. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
47.
Lara, E., Koyanagi, A., Caballero, F., Domènech-Abella, J., Miret, M., Olaya, B., et al. (2017). Cognitive reserve is associated with quality of life: A population-based study. Experimental Gerontology, 87, 67–73.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Raggi, A., Corso, B., Minicuci, N., Quintas, R., Sattin, D., De Torres, L., et al. (2016). Determinants of quality of life in ageing populations: Results from a cross-sectional study in Finland, Poland and Spain. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159293.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
49.
Garin, N., Olaya, B., Moneta, M. V., Miret, M., Lobo, A., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., & Haro, J. M. (2014). Impact of multimorbidity on disability and quality of life in the Spanish older population. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e111498.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
50.
Snell, D. L., Siegert, R. J., Surgenor, L. J., Dunn, J. A., & Hooper, G. J. (2016). Evaluating quality of life outcomes following joint replacement: Psychometric evaluation of a short form of the WHOQOL-Bref. Quality of Life Research, 25(1), 51–61.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Torisson, G., Stavenow, L., Minthon, L., & Londos, E. (2016). Reliability, validity and clinical correlates of the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s disease (QoL-AD) scale in medical inpatients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 90.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries
Auteurs
David Santos
Francisco J. Abad
Marta Miret
Somnath Chatterji
Beatriz Olaya
Katarzyna Zawisza
Seppo Koskinen
Matilde Leonardi
Josep Maria Haro
José Luis Ayuso-Mateos
Francisco Félix Caballero
Publicatiedatum
16-11-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1737-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2018

Quality of Life Research 4/2018 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Conversion of standard retrospective patient-reported outcomes to momentary versions: cognitive interviewing reveals varying degrees of momentary compatibility

Commentary

Some recommendations for developing multidimensional computerized adaptive tests for patient-reported outcomes

OriginalPaper

The relationship between exercise dose and health-related quality of life with a phase III cardiac rehabilitation program

OriginalPaper

Parent–child separation: the relationship between separation and psychological adjustment among Chinese rural children

OriginalPaper

The relationships between timing of first childbirth, parity, and health-related quality of life

OriginalPaper

Predictors of self-reported health-related quality of life according to the EQ-5D-Y in chronically ill children and adolescents with asthma, diabetes, and juvenile arthritis: longitudinal results