Development and evaluation of a crosswalk between the SF-36 physical functioning scale and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in rheumatoid arthritis

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Mart AFJ van de Laar⁷  Piet LCM van Riel²  Cees AW Glas¹  Erik Taal³  Jakob B Bjorner⁶  Matthias Rose⁴  Barbara Gandek⁵  Martijn AH Oude Voshaar³  Peter M ten Klooster³ 

[1] Department of Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany;Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA;QualityMetric/OptumInsight, Lincoln, Rhode Island, USA;Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

关键词: Short form 36-item health survey (SF-36);    Rheumatoid arthritis;    Physical functioning;    Linking;    Item response theory;    Health assessment questionnaire;   

Others  :  822083
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-199

 received in 2013-07-22, accepted in 2013-11-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) are the most frequently used instruments for measuring self-reported physical function in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to develop a crosswalk between scores on the PF-10 and HAQ-DI in RA.

Methods

Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to co-calibrate both scales using data from 1791 RA patients. The appropriateness of a Rasch-based crosswalk was evaluated by comparing it with crosswalks based on a two-parameter and a multi-dimensional IRT model. The accuracy of the final crosswalk was cross-validated using baseline (n = 532) and 6-month follow-up (n = 276) data from an independent cohort of early RA patients.

Results

The PF-10 and HAQ-DI adequately fit a unidimensional Rasch model. Both scales measured a wide range of functioning, although the HAQ-DI tended to better target lower levels of functioning. The Rasch-based crosswalk performed similarly to crosswalks based on the two-parameter and multidimensional IRT models. Agreement between predicted and observed scale scores in the cross-validation sample was acceptable for group-level comparisons. The longitudinal validity in discriminating between disease response states was similar between observed and predicted scores.

Conclusion

The crosswalk developed in this study allows for converting scores from one scale to the other and can be used for group-level analyses in patients with RA.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 ten Klooster et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stewart AL, Kamberg CJ: Physical functioning measures. In Measuring functioning and well-being. Edited by Stewart AL, Ware JEJr. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992:86-101.
• [2]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [3]Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR: Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980, 23:137-145.
• [4]Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY: The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 1982, 9:789-793.
• [5]Bruce B, Fries JF: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23:S14-S18.
• [6]Oude Voshaar MA, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, van de Laar MA: Measurement properties of physical function scales validated for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011, 9:99. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Boers M, Tugwell P, Felson DT, van Riel PL, Kirwan JR, Edmonds JP, Smolen JS, Khaltaev N, Muirden KD: World health organization and international league of associations for rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol 1994, 21:86-89.
• [8]Wolfe F, Lassere M, van der Heijde D, Stucki G, Suarez-Almazor M, Pincus T, Eberhardt K, Kvien TK, Symmons D, Silman A, et al.: Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1999, 26:484-489.
• [9]Kalyoncu U, Dougados M, Daures JP, Gossec L: Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in recent trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:183-190.
• [10]Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson PR: Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials 2013, 14:324. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Dorans NJ: Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:85-94.
• [12]Lim RL: Linking results of distinct assessments. Appl Meas Educ 1993, 6:83-102.
• [13]Chang CH, Reeve BB: Item response theory and its applications to patient-reported outcomes measurement. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28:264-282.
• [14]McHorney CA: Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:743-750.
• [15]McHorney CA, Cohen AS: Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000, 38:II43-II59.
• [16]Reise SP, Waller NG: Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2009, 5:27-48.
• [17]Fisher WP Jr, Eubanks RL, Marier RL: Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI physical functioning scales. J Outcome Meas 1997, 1:329-362.
• [18]Orlando M, Sherbourne CD, Thissen D: Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement. Psychol Assess 2000, 12:354-359.
• [19]Carmody TJ, Rush AJ, Bernstein I, Warden D, Brannan S, Burnham D, Woo A, Trivedi MH: The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: a comparison of measures. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2006, 16:601-611.
• [20]Fischer HF, Tritt K, Klapp BF, Fliege H: How to compare scores from different depression scales: equating the patient health questionnaire (PHQ) and the ICD-10-symptom rating (ISR) using item response theory. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2011, 20:203-214.
• [21]Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
• [22]Andersen EB: Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 1977, 42:69-81.
• [23]Escalante A, Del RI, Cornell JE: Latent variable approach to the measurement of physical disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 51:399-407.
• [24]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 arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:723-729.
• [25]Martin M, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Maclean R, Li T: Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:647-660.
• [26]Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE: Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:17-33.
• [27]Kievit W, Fransen J, Oerlemans AJ, Kuper HH, van de Laar MA, de Rooij DR, De Gendt CM, Ronday KH, Jansen TL, van Oijen PC, et al.: The efficacy of anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis, a comparison between randomized controlled trials and clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66:1473-1478.
• [28]Vermeer M, Kuper HH, Hoekstra M, Haagsma CJ, Posthumus MD, Brus HL, van Riel PL, van de Laar MA: Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy in very early rheumatoid arthritis: results of the Dutch rheumatoid arthritis monitoring remission induction cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2011, 63:2865-2872.
• [29]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE: How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey (standard & acute forms). QualityMetric Inc: Lincoln, RI; 2000.
• [30]Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr: Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:671-684.
• [31]Fries JF: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Improved HAQ. Stanford: Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Immunology & Rheumatology; 2009. Available at: http://aramis.stanford.edu/haq.html webcite
• [32]ten Klooster PM, Taal E, van de Laar MA: Rasch analysis of the Dutch health assessment questionnaire disability index and the health assessment questionnaire II in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 59:1721-1728.
• [33]Glas CAW: Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika 1999, 64:273-294.
• [34]Glas CAW: Testing fit to IRT models for polytomously scored items. In Handbook of polytomous item response theory models. Edited by Nering ML, Ostini R. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010:185-210.
• [35]van Groen MM, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, van de Laar MA, Glas CA: Application of the health assessment questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res 2010, 19:1255-1263.
• [36]Oude Voshaar MA, Glas CA, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, Wolfe F, van de Laar MA: Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the health assessment questionnaire-II. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012, 65:1000-1004.
• [37]Glas CA: Preliminary manual of the software program Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente; 2010. Available at: http://www.utwente.nl/gw/omd/en/employees/employees/glas.doc/ webcite
• [38]Masters GN, Wright BD: The partial credit model. In Handbook of modern item response theory. Edited by van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. New York: Springer; 1997:101-122.
• [39]McGraw KO, Wong SP: Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996, 1:30-46.
• [40]Lohr KN: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:193-205.
• [41]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, i:307-310.
• [42]Bland JM, Altman DG: Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995, 346:1085-1087.
• [43]McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE: The MOS 36-Item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993, 31:247-263.
• [44]Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA: Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985, 28:542-547.
• [45]Prevoo ML, Hof MA V ’t, Kuper HH, Van Leeuwen MA, Van De Putte LB, Van Riel PL: Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995, 38:44-48.
• [46]Fransen J, van Riel PL: The disease activity score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23:S93-S99.
• [47]Deng N, Ware J: Using bootstrap confidence intervals to compare relative validity coefficients: an example with PRO measures of chronic kidney disease (CKD) impact. Value Health 2012, 15:A159.
• [48]Dorans NJ: Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement 2004, 28:227-246.
• [49]McHorney CA: Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the asset and health dynamics among the oldest old study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83:383-394.
• [50]Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr: Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:981-1002.
• [51]Holzner B, Bode RK, Hahn EA, Cella D, Kopp M, Sperner-Unterweger B, Kemmler G: Equating EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G scores and its use in oncological research. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:3169-3177.
• [52]Velozo CA, Byers KL, Wang YC, Joseph BR: Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the functional independence measure and the minimum data set. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007, 44:467-478.
• [53]Haley SM, Ni P, Lai JS, Tian F, Coster WJ, Jette AM, Straub D, Cella D: Linking the activity measure for post acute care and the quality of life outcomes in neurological disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 92:S37-S43.
• [54]Fischer HF, Wahl I, Fliege H, Klapp BF, Rose M: Impact of cross-calibration methods on the interpretation of a treatment comparison study using 2 depression scales. Med Care 2012, 50:320-326.
• [55]Askew RL, Kim J, Chung H, Cook KF, Johnson KL, Amtmann D: Development of a crosswalk for pain interference measured by the BPI and PROMIS pain interference short form. Qual Life Res 2013. (2013 Mar 29. [Epub ahead of print])
• [56]Noonan VK, Cook KF, Bamer AM, Choi SW, Kim J, Amtmann D: Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: creating a crosswalk between the modified fatigue impact scale and the PROMIS fatigue short form. Qual Life Res 2012, 21:1123-1133.
• [57]Fries JF, Krishnan E, Bruce B: Items, instruments, crosswalks, and PROMIS. J Rheumatol 2009, 36:1093-1095.
• [58]Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, Ader D, Fries JF, Bruce B, Rose M: The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007, 45:S3-S11.
• [59]Fries JF, Cella D, Rose M, Krishnan E, Bruce B: Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 2009, 36:2061-2066.
• [60]Siemons L, Ten Klooster PM, Taal E, Glas CA, Van de Laar MA: Modern psychometrics applied in rheumatology–A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012, 13:216. BioMed Central Full Text
• [61]Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004, 7(Suppl 1):S22-S26.
• [62]Andrich D: Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004, 42:I7-I16.
• [63]Bond TG, Fox CM: Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.
• [64]Stucki G, Stucki S, Bruhlmann P, Michel BA: Ceiling effects of the health assessment questionnaire and its modified version in some ambulatory rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis 1995, 54:461-465.
• [65]Uhlig T, Haavardsholm EA, Kvien TK: Comparison of the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and the modified HAQ (MHAQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006, 45:454-458.
• [66]Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T: Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:3296-3305.
• [67]Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, Brownson CA: Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999, 80:877-884.
• [68]Freeman JA, Hobart JC, Langdon DW, Thompson AJ: Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000, 68:150-156.
• [69]Kersten P, Mullee MA, Smith JA, McLellan L, George S: Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people. Clin Rehabil 1999, 13:219-228.
• [70]Lai SM, Perera S, Duncan PW, Bode R: Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke 2003, 34:488-493.
• [71]Walsh M, Macgregor D, Stuckless S, Barrett B, Kawaja M, Scully MF: Health-related quality of life in a cohort of adult patients with mild hemophilia A. J Thromb Haemost 2008, 6:755-761.
• [72]Katz P, Morris A, Yelin E: Subclinical disability in valued life activities among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 59:1416-1423.
• [73]Langston AL, Campbell MK, Fraser WD, Maclennan G, Selby P, Ralston SH: Clinical determinants of quality of life in Paget’s disease of bone. Calcif Tissue Int 2007, 80:1-9.
• [74]Lovas K, Kalo Z, McKenna SP, Whalley D, Pentek M, Genti G: Establishing a standard for patient-completed instrument adaptations in Eastern Europe: experience with the Nottingham health profile in Hungary. Health Policy 2003, 63:49-61.
• [75]Johnson SR, Lee P: The HAQ disability index in scleroderma trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:1200-1201.
• [76]Zandbelt MM, Welsing PM, van Gestel AM, van Riel PL: Health assessment questionnaire modifications: is standardisation needed? Ann Rheum Dis 2001, 60:841-845.
• [77]Wolfe F: A reappraisal of HAQ disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:2751-2761.
• [78]Krishnan E, Sokka T, Hakkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P: Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index: benchmarking disability in the general population. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:953-960.
• [79]Louie GH, Reveille JD, Ward MM: Challenges comparing functional limitations in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009, 27:S83-S91.
• [80]Combe B, Landewe R, Lukas C, Bolosiu HD, Breedveld F, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JM, Klareskog L, et al.: EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66:34-45.
• [81]Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, Combe B, Cutolo M, de Wit M, Dougados M, et al.: Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:631-637.