Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 373-385

  Petersen, Morten Aa ^a   Groenvold, Mogens ^a,b   Bjorner, Jakob B ^c   Aaronson, Neil ^d   Conroy, Thierry ^e   Cull, Ann ^f   Fayers, Peter ^g   Hjermstad, Marianne ^h   Sprangers, Mirjam ⁱ   Sullivan, Marianne ^j  

^a BISPEBJERG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT   (Denmark)

^d NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^e CENTRE ALEXIS VAUTRIN   (France)

^f WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^h OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^j SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

more..

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Multi item scales; Translation; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCALE UP; SPEECH DISORDER; TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AGED; CULTURE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TRANSLATING;

EID: 0038287958     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023488915557     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Cull A, Sprangers MA, Bjordal K and Aaronson NK. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group Translation Procedure. Brussels, 1998.
2. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA Project approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 913-923.
3. Meadows K, Bentzen N, Touw-Otten F. Cross-cultural issues: An outline of the important principles in establishing cross-cultural validity in health outcome assessment. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen N, König-Zahn C (eds), Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assenssment: A User's Guide, 1997; 34-40.
4. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-1432.
5. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
6. Avlund K, Era P, Davidsen M, Gause-Nilsson I. Item bias in self-reported functional ability among 75-year-old men and women in three Nordic localities. Scand J Soc Med 1996; 24: 206-217.
7. Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, Damsgaard MT, Bech P. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1189-1202.
8. Ellis BB, Becker P, Kimmel HD. An item bias theory evaluation of an English version of the Trier personality-inventory (TPI). J Cross-Cultural Psychol 1993; 24: 133-148.
9. Gierl MJ, Rogers WT, Klinger DA. Using statistical and judgmental reviews to identify and interpret translation differential item functioning. Alberta J Educ Res 1999; 45: 353-376.
10. Ellis BB, Mead AD. Assessment of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the 16PF questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas 2000; 60: 787-807.
11. Sireci SG, Berberoglu G. Using bilingual respondents to evaluate translated-adapted items. Appl Meas Educ 2000; 13: 229-248.
12. Kreiner S. Validation of index scales for analysis of survey data: the Symptom index. In: Dean K (ed.), Population Health Research: Linking Theory and Methods. London: SAGE Publications, 1993: 116-144.
13. Osterlind SJ. Test Item Bias. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
14. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life. Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000.
15. French AW, Miller TR. Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. J Educ Meas 1996; 33: 315-332.
16. Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic-regression procedures. J Educ Meas 1990; 27: 361-370.
17. Muraki E. Stepwise analysis of differential item functioning based on multiple-group partial credit model. J Educ Meas 1999; 36: 217-232.
18. Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: Application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1651-1683.
19. Holland PW, Thayer DT. Differential Item Performance and the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure. In: Wainer H, Brain H (eds), Test Validity. Hillsdale NJ: LEA, 1988; 129-145.
20. Kreiner, S. User Guide to DIGRAM - A Program for Discrete Graphical Modelling, Technical Report 89-10. Statistical Research Unit, University of Copenhagen, 1989
21. Kreiner S. Analysis of multidimensional contingency tables b11y exact conditional tests: Techniques and strategies. Scand J Stat 1987; 14: 97-112.
22. Mellenbergh GJ. Contingency table models for assessing item bias. J Educ Stat 1982; 7: 105-108.
23. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B 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 1993; 85: 365-376.
24. Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 2001.
25. Davis JA. A partial coefficient for Goodman and Kruskal's gamma. JASA 1967; 174-180.
26. Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Klee MC, Kreiner S. Test for item bias in a quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 805-816.
27. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed., Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1989.
28. Bjorner JB, Ware JE. Using Modern Psychometric Methods to Measure Health Outcomes. Medical Outcomes Trust 1998; 3: 12-16.
29. Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 1993; 114: 552-566.