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 8/2015

01-08-2015

Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test

Auteurs: Nina Deng, Milena D. Anatchkova, Molly E. Waring, Kyung T. Han, John E. Ware Jr.

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The Quality-of-life (QOL) Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) standardizes the content and scoring of QOL impact attributed to different diseases using item response theory (IRT). This study examined the IRT invariance of the QDIS-standardized IRT parameters in an independent sample.

Method

The differential functioning of items and test (DFIT) of a static short-form (QDIS-7) was examined across two independent sources: patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the TRACE-CORE study (N = 1,544) and chronically ill US adults in the QDIS standardization sample. “ACS-specific” IRT item parameters were calibrated and linearly transformed to compare to “standardized” IRT item parameters. Differences in IRT model-expected item, scale and theta scores were examined. The DFIT results were also compared in a standard logistic regression differential item functioning analysis.

Results

Item parameters estimated in the ACS sample showed lower discrimination parameters than the standardized discrimination parameters, but only small differences were found for thresholds parameters. In DFIT, results on the non-compensatory differential item functioning index (range 0.005–0.074) were all below the threshold of 0.096. Item differences were further canceled out at the scale level. IRT-based theta scores for ACS patients using standardized and ACS-specific item parameters were highly correlated (r = 0.995, root-mean-square difference = 0.09). Using standardized item parameters, ACS patients scored one-half standard deviation higher (indicating greater QOL impact) compared to chronically ill adults in the standardization sample.

Conclusion

The study showed sufficient IRT invariance to warrant the use of standardized IRT scoring of QDIS-7 for studies comparing the QOL impact attributed to acute coronary disease and other chronic conditions.
vorige artikel Overall performance of Oort’s procedure for response shift detection at item level: a pilot simulation study
volgende artikel Testing measurement invariance of the GHQ-28 in stroke patients
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Kemp, J. P., Buchner, D. A., et al. (1998). The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults. Quality of Life Research, 7(3), 235–244.PubMedCrossRef
2.
De Boer, A. G., Spruijt, R. J., Sprangers, M. A., & de Haes, J. C. (1998). Disease-specific quality of life: is it one construct? Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 135–142.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Spertus, J. A., Winder, J. A., Drewhurst, T. A., et al. (1995). Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25, 333–341.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Rector, T. S., Kubo, S. H., & Cohn, J. N. (1987). Patients’ self-assessment of their congestive heart failure. Part 2: content, reliability and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. Heart Failure, 3, 198–209.
5.
Stewart, A. L., Greenfield, S., Hays, R. D., et al. (1989). Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA, 262, 907–913.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Harrington, M., Guyer, R., & Boulanger, R. (2012). A system for integrating generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Patient Reported Outcomes Newsletter, 48(Fall), 2–4.
7.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Gandek, B., & Guyer, R. (2014). Measuring disease-specific quality of life (QOL) impact: A manual for users of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS ® ). Worcester, MA: JWRG Incorporated.
8.
Ware, J. E. Jr., Guyer, R., Gandek, B., Deng, N. Standardizing disease-specific quality of life (QOL) impact measures: Development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS ® ) (submitted).
9.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.CrossRef
11.
Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368.
12.
Oldroyd, J. C., Cyril, S., Wijayatilaka, B. S., et al. (2013). Evaluating the impact of depression, anxiety & autonomic function on health related quality of life, vocational functioning and health care utilisation in acute coronary syndrome patients: the ADVENT study protocol. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 13, 103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
Kim, M. J., Jeon, D. S., Gwon, H. C., et al. (2013). Health-related quality-of-life after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with UA/NSTEMI and STEMI: The Korean multicenter registry. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 28(6), 848–854.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Waring, M. E., McManus, R. H., Saczynski, J. S., et al. (2012). Transitions, risks, and actions in coronary events-center for outcomes research and education (TRACE-CORE): Design and rationale. Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5(5), e44–e50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Howard, K. I., & Forehand, G. G. (1962). A method for correcting item-total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 731–735.CrossRef
16.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRef
17.
Oshima, T. C., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Raju’s differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 43–50.CrossRef
18.
Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309–326.CrossRef
19.
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.CrossRef
20.
Swaminathan, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (2007). Assessing the fit of item response theory models. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics: Psychometrics (pp. 683–718). London: Elsevier Publishing Co.
21.
Hambleton, R. K., & Han, N. (2005). Assessing the fit of IRT models to educational and psychological test data: A five step plan and several graphical displays. In W. R. Lenderking & D. Revicki (Eds.), Advances in health outcomes research methods, measurement, statistical analysis, and clinical applications (pp. 57–78). Washington: Degnon Associates.
22.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). PARSCALE 4: IRT item analysis and test scoring for rating scale data [computer program]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
23.
Liang, T., Han, K. T., & Hambleton, R. K. (2009). ResidPlots-2: Computer software for IRT graphical residual analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(5), 411–412.CrossRef
24.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: The Guilford Press.
25.
Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210.CrossRef
26.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRef
27.
28.
Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495–502.CrossRef
29.
Fleer, P. F. (1993). A Monte Carlo assessment of a new measure of item and test bias. Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2266.
30.
Raju, N. (2000). Notes accompanying the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) computer program. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
31.
Teresi, J. A., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., et al. (2007). Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): Applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Quality of Life Research, 16, 43–68.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197–207.CrossRef
33.
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. Ottawa ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
34.
Crane, P. K., van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Reeve, B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J., et al., on behalf of the PROMIS cooperative group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health–related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.
36.
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supports the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 17–33.PubMedCrossRef
37.
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.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: a comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517–529.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
40.
Wong, C. K., Lam, C. L., & Mulhern, B. (2013). Measurement invariance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal quality-of-life instrument among modes of administration. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1415–1426.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
Bjørner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., et al. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Alonso, J., Ferrer, M., Gandek, B., et al. (2004). Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Quality of Life Research, 13, 283–298.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Patrick, D. L., & Deyo, R. A. (1989). Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care, 27(3 Suppl), S217–S232.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Guyer, R., Harrington, M., & Boulanger, R. (2012). Evaluation of a more comprehensive survey item bank for standardizing disease-specific impact comparisons across chronic conditions. Quality of Life Research, 21(1 Suppl), 27–28.
45.
46.
Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253–260.CrossRef
47.
Hidalgo-Montesinos, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2002). Two-stage equating in differential item functioning detection under the graded response model with the Raju area measures and the Lord statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 32–44.CrossRef
48.
Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 113–141.CrossRef
49.
Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 1–17.CrossRef
50.
Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2013). Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System initiative. Quality of Life Research, 23, 217–227.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
51.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R Package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.PubMedCentralPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test
Auteurs
Nina Deng
Milena D. Anatchkova
Molly E. Waring
Kyung T. Han
John E. Ware Jr.
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/s11136-015-0916-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2015

Quality of Life Research 8/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

OriginalPaper

Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review

OriginalPaper

Assessment of Parkinson’s disease levodopa-induced dyskinesia: a qualitative research study

Brief Communication

Validation of the Malay version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) in Malaysia

OriginalPaper

Overall performance of Oort’s procedure for response shift detection at item level: a pilot simulation study

OriginalPaper

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population