Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: Analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 425-436

  Cabrero García, Julio ^a   López Pina, José Antonio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALICANTE   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Aged; Bias; Health surveys; Models; Statistical

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABLED PERSON; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PHYSICAL MOBILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF CARE; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; SPAIN;

EID: 41149157861     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9313-x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Spector, W. D., & Fleishman, J. A. (1998). Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, S46-S57.
2. Fleishman, J. A., Spector, W. D., & Altman, B. (2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, S275-S284.
3. Lindeboom, R., Vermeulen, M., Holman, R., & De Haan, R. J. (2003). Activities of daily living instruments:Optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology, 60, 738-742.
4. Avlund, K. (1997). Methodological challenges in measurements of functional ability in gerontological research. A review. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 9, 164-174.
5. Kempen, G. I., Miedema, I., Ormel, J., & Molenaar, W. (1996). The assessment of disability with the Groningen activity restriction scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 1601-1610.
6. Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Bond, T. L. Y., & Ni, P. (2004). Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement. Medical Care, 42, I62-I72.
7. Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179-186.
8. Spector, W. D., Katz, S., Murphy, J. B., & Fulton, J. P. (1987). The hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of Chronical Disease, 40, 481-489.
9. Breithaupt, K., & McDowell, I. (2001). Considerations for measuring functioning of the elderly: IRM dimensionality and scaling analysis. Heath Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 37-50.
10. Saliba, D., Orlando, M., Wenger, N. S., Hays, R. D., & Rubenstein, L. Z. (2002) Identifying a short functional disability screen for older persons. Journals of Gerontology Serie A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 55, M750-M756.
11. Kempen, G. I. J. M., Myers, A. M., & Powell, L. E. (1995). Hierarchical structure in ADL and IADL: Analytical assumptions and applications for clinicians and researchers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiolgy, 48, 1299-1305.
12. Thomas, V. S., Rockwood, K., & McDowell, I. M. (1998). Multidimensionality in instrumental and basic activities of daily living. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 315-321.
13. Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1994). Gender, race, and health: The structure of health status among older adults. The Gerontologist, 34, 24-35.
14. Ng, T. P., Niti, M., Chiam, P. Ch., & Kua, E. H. (2006). Physical and cognitive domains of the instrumental activities of daily living: Validation in a multiethnic population of Asian older adults. Journals of Gerontology Serie A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 61, 726-735.
15. Allen, S. M., Mor, V., Raveis, V., & Houts. P. (1993). Measurement of need for assistance with daily activities: Quantifying the influence of gender roles. Journals of Gerontology Serie B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 48, 204-211.
16. Niti, M., Ng, T. P., Chiam, P. C, & Kua, E. H. (2007). Item response bias was present in instrumental activity of daily living scale in Asian older adults. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 366-374.
17. Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 33-42.
18. Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S. G., Muraki, E., Wilson, D. T., & Wood, R. (2003). TESTFACT [computer software]. Version 4.0. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
19. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2001). Encuesta sobre discapacidades, deficiencias y estado de salud 1999. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
20. McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99-114.
21. Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19-31.
22. Lai, J. S., Crane, P. K., & Cella, D. (2006). Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1179-1190.
23. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S78-S94.
24. Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S39-S49.
25. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Verbrugge, L. M., & Sevak, P. (2002). Use, type, and efficacy of assistance for disability. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, S366-S379.
27. Lazaridis, E. N., Rudberg, M. A., Furner, S. E., & Cassel, C. K. (1994). Do activities of daily living have a hierarchical structure? An analysis using the longitudinal study of aging. Journal of Gerontology, 49, M47-M51.
28. McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
29. Schumacker, R. E., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Reliability. A Rasch perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 394-409.
30. Jette, A. M. (1994). How measurement techniques influence estimates of disability in older populations. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 937-942.
31. Jenkins, C. L., & Laditka, S. B. (2003). A comparative analysis of disability measures and their relation to home health care use. Home Health Care Services Quaterly, 22, 21-37.
32. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
33. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
34. Hambleton, R. L., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Pack, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
35. Bryce, B. R., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. L., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., Liu, H., Gershon, R., Reise, S. P., Lai, J., & Cella, D. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22-S31.
36. Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of binary data test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 159-203.
37. Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S69-S77.
38. Hoyle, R. H., & Duball, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory, confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 301-315). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
39. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
40. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
41. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ConQuest [computer software]. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
42. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Verbrugge, L. M., Yang, L. S., & Juarez, L. (2004). Severity, timing, and structure of disability. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, 49, 110-121.
44. World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO.
45. Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self-maintenance: Activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31, 721-727.
46. Dunlop, D. D., Hughes, S. L., & Manheim, L. M. (1997). Disability in activities of daily living: Patterns of change and a hierarchy of disability. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 378-383.
47. Guralnik, J. M., Fried, L. P., & Salive, M. E. (1996). Disability as a public health outcome in the aging population. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 25-46.
48. Picavet, H. S., & Van den Bos, G. A. (1996). Comparing survey data on functional disability: The impact of some methodological differences. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 50, 86-93.
49. Rodgers, W., & Miller, B. (1997). A comparative analysis of ADL questions in surveys of older people. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(Spec No), 21-36.
50. Freedman, V. A. (2000). Implications of asking "ambiguous" difficulty questions: an analysis of the second wave of the asset and health dynamics of the oldest old study. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, S288-S297.
51. Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., & Klapp, B. F. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptative test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14, 2277-2291.
52. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50-64.
53. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X-2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289.