Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 51, Issue 11, 1998, Pages 933-944

  Keller, Susan D ^a   Ware Jr , John E ^a   Gandek, Barbara ^a   Aaronson, Neil K ^b   Alonso, Jordi ^c   Apolone, Giovanni ^d   Bjorner, Jakob B ^e   Brazier, John ^f   Bullinger, Monika ^g   Fukuhara, Shunichi ^h   Kaasa, Stein ⁱ   Leplège, Alain ^j   Sanson Fisher, Robert W ^m   Sullivan, Marianne ^k   Wood Dauphinee, Sharon ^l  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^c INST MUNIC D INVESTIGACIO MEDICA   (Spain)

^d MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

ⁱ NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^j BICÊTRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^k Institute of Laboratory Medicine   (Sweden)

^l MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^m NONE

more..

Author keywords

Categorical rating scales; Questionnaires; SF 36 Health Survey; Thurstone scaling; Translations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; FEMALE; FRANCE; GERMANY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; ITALY; JAPAN; LANGUAGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPAIN; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032212643     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Meenan R.F., Gertman P.M., Mason J.H. Measuring health status in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 23:1980;146-152.
2. Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N.J.et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology J Natl Cancer Inst. 85:1993;365-376.
3. Davies AR, Ware JE. GHAA's Consumer Satisfaction Survey and User's Manual. Washington, D.C.: Group Health Association of America; 1992.
4. Chambers L.W. The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire. Methodologic Documentation and Report of the Second Generation of Investigations:1982;Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
5. Ware J.E., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 30:1992;473-483.
6. Wells W.D., Smith G. Four semantic rating scales compared. J Appl Psychol. 44:1960;393-397.
7. Finn R.H. Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educ Psychol Meas. 32:1972;255-265.
8. Dixon P.N., Bobo M., Stevick R. Response differences and preferences for all-category-defined and end-defined Likert formats. Educ Psychol Meas. 44:1984;61-66.
9. Peters D.L., McCormick E.J. Comparative reliability of numerically anchored versus job-task anchored rating scales. J Appl Psychol. 50:1966;92-96.
10. Ware J.E., Keller S.D. Interpreting general health measures. Spilker B. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition. 1995;Raven Press, New York.
11. Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 1956;McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
12. Baker B.O., Hardyck C.D., Petrinovich L.F. Weak measurements vs. strong statistics. An empirical critique of S. S. Steven's proscriptions on statistics Educ Psychol Meas. 26:1966;291-309.
13. Vijn P. Ordinal data, ordered scale points, and order statistics. Psychometrika. 48:1983;437-449.
14. Hofacker C.F. Categorical judgement scaling with ordinal assumptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 19:1984;91-106.
15. Lord F.M. On the statistical treatment of football numbers. Am Psychol. 8:1958;750-751.
16. Gaito J. Measurement scales and statistics. Resurgence of an old misconception Psychol Bull. 87:1980;564-567.
17. Spector P.E. Ratings of equal and unequal response choice intervals. J Soc Psychol. 112:1980;115-119.
18. Nunnally J.C., Bernstein I.R. Psychometric Theory. 3:1994;McGraw-Hill, New York.
19. Boneau C.A. The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the t test. Psychol Bull. 57:1960;49-64.
20. Zimmerman D.W. Comparative power of Student t test and Mann Whitney U test for unequal sample sizes and variances. J Exp Educ. 55:1987;171-174.
21. Rasmussen J.L. Analysis of Likert-scale data. A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver Psyhchol Bull. 105:1989;167-170.
22. Glass G.V., Peckham P.D., Sanders J.R. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Rev Educ Res. 42:1972;237-288.
23. Crocker L., Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. 1986;Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, New York.
24. Pedhazur E.J., Schmelkin L.P. Measurement, Design, and Analysis. An Integrated Approach:1991;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
25. Davies AR, Ware JE. Measuring Health Perceptions in the Health Insurance Experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1981. (Health Insurance Experiment Series).
26. Eiser J.R., Hoepfner F. Accidents, disease, and the greenhouse effect. effects of response categories on estimates of risk Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 12:1991;195-210.
27. Schwarz N., Hippler H.J., Deutsch B., Strack F. Response scales. Effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgements Public Opin Q. 49:1985;388-395.
28. Ray J.J. The effect of collapsing response categories on the balanced F scale. J Soc Psychol. 123:1984;279-281.
29. Brazier J.E., Harper R., Jones N.M.B., O'Cathain A., Thomas K.J., Usherwood T.et al. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire. New outcome measure for primary care Br Med J. 305:1992;160-164.
30. Anderson R.T., Aaronson N.K., Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2:1993;369-395.
31. Ramsay J.O. The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika. 38:1973;513-532.
32. McKelvie S.J. Graphic rating scales - how many categories? Br J Psychol. 69:1978;185-202.
33. Oaster T.R.F. Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Percep Motor Skills. 68:1989;549-550.
34. Aiken L.R. Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 43:1983;397-401.
35. Cicchetti D.V., Showalter D., Tyrer P.J. The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability. A Monte Carlo investigation Appl Psychol Meas. 9:1985;31-36.
36. Lissitz R.W., Green S.B. Effect of the number of scale points on reliability. A Monte Carlo approach J Appl Psychol. 60:1975;10-13.
37. Chan J.C. Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 51:1991;531-540.
38. Wildt A.R., Mazis M.B. Determinants of scale response. label versus position J Market Res. 15:1978;261-267.
39. Rambo W.W. Equal-appearing interval scales, own-attitude, and experimental instructions. Note Percept Motor Skills. 26:1968;839-842.
40. Silverman F.H., Johnston R.G. Direct interval-estimation. A ratio scaling method Percept Motor Skills. 41:1975;464-466.
41. Schriesheim C., Schriesheim J. Development and empirical verification of new response categories to increase the validity of multiple response alternative questionnaires. Educ Psychol Meas. 34:1971;877-884.
42. Ware JE, Keller SD, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M, the IQOLA Project Group. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires: Methods from the IQOLA Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 525-551.
43. Russell C.J., Bobko P. Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales. Too coarse for comfort J Appl Psychol. 77:1992;336-342.
44. Ware J.E., Kosinski M., Keller S.D. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity Med Care. 3:1996;220-233.
45. Pace C.J., Friedlander J. The meaning of response categories. How often is "occasionally," "often," and "very often?" Res Higher Educ. 17:1982;267-281.
46. Kowalchuk B.P., Endler N.S. Twice as anxious or very anxious? Comparing ratio and Likert scales. Can J Behav Sci Rev Can Sci Comp. 17:1985;162-169.
47. Schaeffer N.C. Hardly ever or constantly? Group comparisons using vague quantifiers. Public Opin Q. 55:1991;395-423.
48. Cliff N. Adverbs as multipliers. Psychol Rev. 66:1959;27-44.
49. Schriesheim C.A., Gardiner C.C. A comparative test of magnitude estimation and pair-comparison treatment of complete ranks for scaling a small number of equal-interval frequency response anchors. Educ Psychol Meas. 52:1992;867-877.
50. Matell M.S., Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I. Reliability and validity Educ Psychol Meas. 31:1971;657-674.
51. Duncan O.D., Stenbeck M. Are Likert scales unidimensional? Soc Sci Res. 16:1987;245-259.
52. Hadorn D.C., Uebersax J. Large-scale health outcomes evaluation. How should quality of life be measured? Part I - Calibration of a brief questionnaire and a search for preference subgroups J Clin Epidemiol. 48:1995;607-618.
53. Lessler J.T. Choosing questions that people can understand and answer. Med Care. 33:1995;AS203-AS208.
54. Stewart A.L., Ware J.E. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. The Medical Outcomes Study Approach:1992;Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
55. Ware J.E., Nelson E.C., Sherbourne C.D., Stewart A.L. Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey. A patient application Stewart A.L., Ware J.E. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. The Medical Outcomes Study Approach:1992;Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
56. Ware J.E., Snow K.K., Kosinski M., Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. 1993;The Health Institute, Boston, MA.
57. Gardner P.L. Scales and statistics. Rev Educ Res. 45:1975;43-57.
58. Kenny G.K. The metric properties of rating scales employed in evaluation research. An empirical examination Eval Rev. 10:1986;397-408.
59. Ware J.E., Kosinski M. SF-36 Version 2.0 Technical Note. 1996;Health Assessment Lab, Boston, MA.
60. Ware J.E., Gandek B. Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability. The IQOLA Project approach J Clin Epidemiol. 51(11):1998;945-952.