Investigating differential item functioning by chronic diseases in the SF-36 health survey: A latent trait analysis using MIMIC models

Medical Care

Volumn 45, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 851-859

  Yu, Yanni Fan ^a   Yu, Andrew Peng ^b   Ahn, Jeonghoon ^c  

^a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^b ANALYSIS GROUP   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning (DIF); Latent trait; Multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC); SF 36

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREATHING DISORDER; CHRONIC DISEASE; CLASSIFICATION; DEPRESSION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RHEUMATIC DISEASE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESPIRATION DISORDERS; RHEUMATIC DISEASES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548078948     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318074ce4c     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense; 1999.
2. Ellis BB. Assessing intelligence cross-nationally: a case for differential item functioning detection. Intelligence. 1990;14:61-78.
3. Zwick R, Donoghue JR, Grima A. Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. J Educ Meas. 1993;30:233-251.
4. Weckerly J, Aarons GA, Leslie LK, et al. Attention on inattention: the differential effect of caregiver education on endorsement of ADHD symptoms. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005;26:201-208.
5. Chung MC, Dennis I, Easthope Y, et al. A multiple-indicator multiplecause model for posttraumatic stress reactions: personality, coping, and maladjustment. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:251-259.
6. Schmidt K, Rees C, Greenfield S, et al. Multischool, international survey of medical students' attitudes toward "holism". Acad Med. 2005;80:955-963.
7. Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Klee MC, et al. Test for item-bias in a quality of life measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:805-816.
8. Fleishman JA, Spector WD, Altman BM. Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57:S275-S284.
9. Avlund K, Era P, Davidsen M, et al. 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.
10. Teresi JA, Cross PS, Golden RR. Some applications of latent trait analysis to the measurement of ADL. J Gerontol. 1989;44:S196-S204.
11. Grayson DA, Mackinnon A, Jorm AF, et al. Item bias in the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: effects of physical disorders and disability in an elderly community sample. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2000;55:273-282.
12. Crane PK, Belle GV, Larson EB. Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat Med. 2004;23:241-256.
13. Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Med Care. 2003;41(Suppl):III-75-III-86.
14. Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, et al. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1189-1202.
15. Perkins A, Stump T, Monahan P, et al. Assessment of differential item functioning for demographic comparisons in the MOS SF-36 health survey. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:331-348.
16. McHorney C, Ware J, 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.
17. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
18. McHorney C, Ware J Jr, Lu J, et al. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). III. Test of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40-66.
19. Gandek B, Ware J Jr, Aaronson NK, et al. Test of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1149-1158.
20. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, et al. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993;306:1440-1444.
21. Lewin-Epstein N, Sagiv-Schifter T, Shabtai E, et al. Validation of the 36-item short-form health survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of Israel. Med Care. 1998;36:1361-1370.
22. Moorer P, Suurmeijer ThP, Foets M, et al. Psychometric properties of the RAND-36 among three chronic disease (multiple sclerosis, rheumatic disease and COPD) in the Netherlands. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:637-645.
23. McCombs JS, Cody M, Besinique K, et al. Measuring the impact of patient counseling in the outpatient pharmacy setting: the research design of the Kaiser Permanente/USC patient consultation study. Clin Ther. 1995;17:1188-1206.
24. Harrell FEJ. Regression Modeling Strategies with Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer; 2001.
25. Yuan YC. Multiple imputation for missing data: concepts and new development. Paper presented at: SAS User Group International (SUGI); 2000; Indianapolis, IN.
26. Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall; 1997.
27. Li KH. Imputation using Markov chains. J Stat Comput Simul. 1988;30:57-19.
28. Liu C. Bartlett's decomposition of the posterior distribution of the covariance for normal monotone ignorable missing data. J Multivariate Anal. 1993;46:198-206.
29. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
30. Clauser BE, Mazor KM. Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1998;17:31-44.
31. Camilli G, Shepard LA. Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
32. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas. 1993;17:297-334.
33. Muthén BO. Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: extending IRT to external variables. In: Wainer H, Braun HI, eds. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988: 213-338.
34. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903-912.
35. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1988;75:800-802.
36. Browne M, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21:230-258.
37. Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model. 1999;6:1-55.
38. Yu J, Coons SJ, Draugalis JR, et al. Equivalence of Chinese and US-English versions of the SF-36 health survey. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:449-457.
39. Mplus [computer program-]. Version 3.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 2004.
40. Grayson D. Two-group classification in latent trait theory: scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika. 1988;53:383-392.