Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1601-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To determine if persons with arthritis differ systematically from persons without arthritis in how they respond to questions on three depression questionnaires, which include somatic items such as fatigue and sleep disturbance.
We extracted data on the Centers for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the Kessler-6 (K-6) scale from three large population-based national surveys. We assessed items on these questionnaires for differential item functioning (DIF) between persons with and without self-reported physician-diagnosed arthritis using multiple indicator multiple cause models, which controlled for the underlying level of depression and important confounders. We also examined if DIF by arthritis status was similar between women and men.
Although five items of the CES-D, one item of the PHQ-9, and five items of the K-6 scale had evidence of DIF based on statistical comparisons, the magnitude of each difference was less than the threshold of a small effect. The statistical differences were a function of the very large sample sizes in the surveys. Effect sizes for DIF were similar between women and men except for two items on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. For each questionnaire, DIF accounted for 8% or less of the arthritis-depression association, and excluding items with DIF did not reduce the difference in depression scores between those with and without arthritis.
Persons with arthritis respond to items on the CES-D, PHQ-9, and K-6 depression scales similarly to persons without arthritis, despite the inclusion of somatic items in these scales.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 626 kb)11136_2017_1601_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Naughton, M. J., Shumaker, S. A., Anderson, R. T., & Czajkowski, S. M. (1996). Psychological aspects of health-related quality of life measurement: Tests and scales. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 117–131). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
Smarr, K. L. (2003). Measures of depression and depressive symptoms. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 49(S5), S134–S146. CrossRef
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. CrossRef
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Teresi, J. A., Ramirez, M., Lai, J. S., & Silver, S. (2008). Occurrences and sources of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in patient-reported outcome measures: Description of DIF methods, and review of measures of depression, quality of life and general health. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(4), 538. PubMedPubMedCentral
Callahan, L. F., Kaplan, M. R., & Pincus, T. (1991). The Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D), and General Well-Being Schedule Depression subscale in rheumatoid arthritis. Criterion contamination of responses. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 4(1), 3–11. CrossRef
Pincus, T., Hassett, A. L., & Callahan, L. F. (2009). Criterion contamination of depression scales in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The need for interpretation of patient questionnaires (as all clinical measures) in the context of all information about the patient. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, 35(4), 861–864. CrossRefPubMed
Covic, T., Pallant, J. F., Conaghan, P. G., & Tennant, A. (2007). A longitudinal evaluation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) in a rheumatoid arthritis population using Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 41. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-41. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Thombs, B. D., Fuss, S., Hudson, M., Schieir, O., Taillefer, S. S., Fogel, J., et al. (2008). High rates of depressive symptoms among patients with systemic sclerosis are not explained by differential reporting of somatic symptoms. Arthritis Care & Research., 59(3), 431–437. CrossRef
Grayson, D. A., Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Creasey, H., & Broe, G. A. (2000). Item bias in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale: Effects of physical disorders and disability in an elderly community sample. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(5), P273–P282. CrossRef
Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585. CrossRef
National Center for Health Statistics. (1987). Plan and operation of the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study, 1982-84. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 1- 22. DHHS Pub No 87-1324. Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (2010). Prevalence of Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis and Arthritis-Attributable Activity Limitation—United States, 2007–2009. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5939a1.htm. Accessed April 25, 2017.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2007). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2007-2008/nhanes07_08.htm. Accessed March 13, 2016.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1997). National Health Interview Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/quest_data_related_1997_forward.htm. Accessed March 13, 2016.
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2002). Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiple-group and growth modeling in Mplus. Mplus Web Notes, 4(5), 1–22.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. CrossRef
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance-structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. CrossRef
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. CrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Converting among effect sizes. In Introduction to meta- analysis (pp. 45-49). West Sussex: Wiley.
Kalpakijan, C. Z., Toussaint, L. L., Albright, K. J., Bombardier, C. H., Krause, J. K., & Tate, D. G. (2009). Patient health questionnaire-9 in spinal cord injury: An examination of factor structure as related to gender. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 32(2), 147–156. CrossRef
Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Willig, J. H., Mugavero, M. J., Lawrence, S. T., Schumacher, J. E., et al. (2010). Measuring depression levels in HIV-infected patients as part of routine clinical care using the 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9). AIDS Care, 22(7), 874–885. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Carleton, R. N., Thibodeau, M. A., Teale, M. J., Welch, P. G., Abrams, M. P., Robinson, T., et al. (2013). The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: A review with a theoretical and empirical examination of item content and factor structure. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058067. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
- Screening for depression in arthritis populations: an assessment of differential item functioning in three self-reported questionnaires
Michael M. Ward
- Springer International Publishing