Exploring differential item functioning in the SF-36 by demographic, clinical, psychological and social factors in an osteoarthritis population

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Diane Dixon²  Marie Johnston¹  Beth Pollard¹ 

[1] Aberdeen Health Psychology Group, University of Aberdeen, 2nd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK;School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

关键词: Measurement equivalence;    Differential item functioning;    Item bias;    Psychometrics;    SF-36;    Osteoarthritis;   

Others  :  1129081
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-346

 received in 2013-05-28, accepted in 2013-12-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The SF-36 is a very commonly used generic measure of health outcome in osteoarthritis (OA). An important, but frequently overlooked, aspect of validating health outcome measures is to establish if items work in the same way across subgroup of a population. That is, if respondents have the same ‘true’ level of outcome, does the item give the same score in different subgroups or is it biased towards one subgroup or another. Differential item functioning (DIF) can identify items that may be biased for one group or another and has been applied to measuring patient reported outcomes. Items may show DIF for different conditions and between cultures, however the SF-36 has not been specifically examined in an osteoarthritis population nor in a UK population. Hence, the aim of the study was to apply the DIF method to the SF-36 for a UK OA population.

Methods

The sample comprised a community sample of 763 people with OA who participated in the Somerset and Avon Survey of Health. The SF-36 was explored for DIF with respect to demographic, social, clinical and psychological factors. Well developed ordinal regression models were used to identify DIF items.

Results

DIF items were found by age (6 items), employment status (6 items), social class (2 items), mood (2 items), hip v knee (2 items), social deprivation (1 item) and body mass index (1 item). Although the impact of the DIF items rarely had a significant effect on the conclusions of group comparisons, in most cases there was a significant change in effect size.

Conclusions

Overall, the SF-36 performed well with only a small number of DIF items identified, a reassuring finding in view of the frequent use of the SF-36 in OA. Nevertheless, where DIF items were identified it would be advisable to analyse data taking account of DIF items, especially when age effects are the focus of interest.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pollard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bombardier C, Melfi CA, Paul J, Green R, Hawker G, Wright J, et al.: Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care 1995, 33:AS131-AS144.
• [2]Covic T, Pallant JF, Conaghan PG, Tennant A: A longitudinal evaluation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) in a rheumatoid arthritis population using Rasch analysis38. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Zumbo BD, Koh KH: Manifestation of differences in item-level characteristics in scale-level measurement invariance tests of multi group confirmatory factor analysis. J Modern Appl Statistical Methods 2005, 4:275-282.
• [4]Teresi JA, Fleishman JA: Differential item functioning and health assessment. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):33-42.
• [5]McHorney CA, Fleishman JA: Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Med Care 2006, 44:S205-S210.
• [6]Teresi JA, Golden RR, Cross P, Gurland B, Kleinman M, Wilder D: Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:473-483.
• [7]Dallmeijer AJ, de GV, Roorda LD, Schepers VP, Lindeman E, van den Berg LH, et al.: Cross-diagnostic validity of the SF-36 physical functioning scale in patients with stroke, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2007, 39:163-169.
• [8]Taylor WJ, McPherson KM: Using Rasch analysis to compare the psychometric properties of the Short Form 36 physical function score and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis1. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:723-729.
• [9]Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, Damsgaard MT, Bech P: Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-3648. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1189-1202.
• [10]Perkins AJ, Stump TE, Monahan PO, McHorney CA: Assessment of differential item functioning for demographic comparisons in the MOS SF-36 health survey. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:331-348.
• [11]Bjorner JB, Kristensen TS: Multi-item scales for measuring global self-rated health: investigation of construct validity using structural equation models. Res Aging 1999, 21:417-439.
• [12]Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Goldenberg DL, Russell IJ, Buskila D, Neumann L: The assessment of functional impairment in fibromyalgia (FM): Rasch analyses of 5 functional scales and the development of the FM Health Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2000, 27:1989-1999.
• [13]Eachus J, Williams M, Chan P, Smith GD, Grainge M, Donovan J, et al.: Deprivation and cause specific morbidity: evidence from the Somerset and Avon survey of health. BMJ 1996, 312:287-292.
• [14]Juni P, Dieppe P, Donovan J, Peters T, Eachus J, Pearson N, et al.: Population requirement for primary knee replacement surgery: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003, 42:516-521.
• [15]Kellgren JH, LAWRENCE JS: Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957, 16:494-502.
• [16]Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski MK, Gandek BG: SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
• [17]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC - A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug-therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15:1833-1840.
• [18]OPCS: Standard Occupational Classification. Volume 3. London: HMSO; 1991.
• [19]Williams A: Euroqol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality-of-life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [20]Lorezo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ: FACTOR. http://psico webcite fcep urv es/utilitats/factor/Download html 2007
• [21]Cooke DJ, Michie C, Hart SD, Hare RD: Evaluating the screening version of the hare psychopathy checklist - Revised (PCL : SV): an item response theory analysis. Psychol Assess 1999, 11:3-13.
• [22]Reckase M: Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications. J Educ Stat 1979, 4:207-230.
• [23]Anderson RO: The theoretical development and empirical evaluation of a logistic regression, paired-comparisons procedure for assessing unidimensionality in the Rasch model. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 1994. PhD
• [24]Velicer WF: Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 1976, 41:321-327.
• [25]Pollard B, Johnston M, Dixon D: Exploring differential item functioning in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012, 13:265. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Zumbo BD: 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; 1999. Ref Type: Report
• [27]Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Meas 1990, 26:361-370.
• [28]Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van BG: Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care 2006, 44:S115-S123.
• [29]Lewis C: A note on the value of including the studied item in the test score when analyzing test items for DIF. In Differential Item Functioning. Edited by Holland P, Wainer H. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:317-319.
• [30]McKenna SP, Doward LC, Meads DM, Tennant A, Lawton G, Grueger J: Quality of life in infants and children with atopic dermatitis: addressing issues of differential item functioning across countries in multinational clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Baltes PB, Baltes MM: Successful aging. Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
• [32]Teresi JA: Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications. Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care 2006, 44:S152-S170.
• [33]Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de GA, Groenvold M, et al.: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:81.