Measuring disparities: Bias in the short form-36v2 among spanish-speaking medical patients

Medical Care

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 480-488

  Sudano, Joseph J ^a,b   Perzynski, Adam ^a,b   Love, Thomas E ^a,b   Lewis, Steven A ^a   Murray, Patrick M ^a,b   M Huber, Gail ^c   Ruo, Bernice ^d   Baker, David W ^d,e  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences ^*  (United States)

^d Division of General Internal Medicine   (United States)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

disparities; measurement self reported health; race ethnicity; SF 36v2

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HISPANIC; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RACE; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; URBAN AREA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHICAGO; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OHIO; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 79954685101     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31820fb944     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Karvouni A, Kouri I, et al. Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2009;338:145-158.
2. Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Med Care. 2006;44:S78-S94.
3. Morales L, Reise SP, Hays R. Evaluating the equivalence of health care ratings by Whites and Hispanics. Med Care. 2000;38:517-527.
4. Bzostek S, Goldman N, Pebley A. Why do Hispanics in the USA report poor health? Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:990-1003. (Pubitemid 47126120)
5. Markides KS, Coreil J. The health of Hispanics in the Southwestern United States: an epidemiologic paradox. Pub Health Report. 1986;101:253-265. (Pubitemid 16056293)
6. Osmond DH, Vranizan K, Schillinger D, et al. Measuring the need for medical care in an ethnically diverse population. Health Service Res. 1996;31:551-571. (Pubitemid 26418702)
7. Ren XS, Amick BC. Race and self assessed health status: the role of socioeconomic factors in the USA. J Epidemiol. 1996;50:269-274.
8. Shetterly SM, Baxter J, Mason LD, et al. Self-rated health among Hispanic versus non-Hispanic white adults: the San Luis Valley Health and Aging Study. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1798-1801.
9. Meredith W, Teresi J. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care. 2006;44:S69-S77. (Pubitemid 44632033)
10. Yoo B. Cross-group comparisons: a cautionary note. Psychol Market. 2002;19:357-368. (Pubitemid 37239508)
11. Horn JL, McArdle JJ. A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exp Aging Res. 1992;18:117-144.
12. Steenkamp J, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consumer Res. 1998;25:78-90.
13. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equat Modeling. 2002;9:233-255.
14. Okazaki S, Sue S. Methodological issues in assessment research with ethnic minorities. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:367-375.
15. Little TD. Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analysis of crosscultural data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behav Res. 1997;32:53-76.
16. Thompson MS, Green SB. Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, eds. A Second Course in Structural Equation Modeling. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2006:119-169.
17. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organization Res Method. 2000;3:4-69.
18. Hays R, Revicki D, Coyne KS. Application of structural equation modeling to health outcomes research. Evaluat Health Prof. 2005;28:295-309. (Pubitemid 41129630)
19. Lubke GH, Dolan CV. Can unequal residual variances across groups mask differences in residual means in the common factor model? Struct Equ Modeling. 2003;10:175.
20. Teresi JA. Overview of quantitative measurement methods: equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Med Care. 2006;44(suppl 3):S39-S49. (Pubitemid 44632030)
21. Raju NS, Laffitte LJ, Byrne B. Measurement equivalence: a comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:517-529. (Pubitemid 36288927)
22. Hays R, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28-II42.
23. Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Med Care. 2003;41:III75-III86.
24. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Gandek B, et al. The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1159-1169.
25. Keller SD, Ware JE, Bentler PM, et al. Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1179-1188. (Pubitemid 28527174)
26. Reed PJ, Moore DD. SF-36 as a Predictor of Health States. Value Health. 2000;3:202-207. (Pubitemid 30641383)
27. Wolinsky FD, Stump TE. A measurement model of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey in a clinical sample of disadvantaged, older, black, and white men and women. Med Care. 1996;34:537-548. (Pubitemid 126433254)
28. Dexter PR, Stump TE, Tierney WM, et al. The psychometric properties of the SF-36 Health Survey among older adults in a clinical setting. J Clin Geropsychol. 1996;2:225-231.
29. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998.
30. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.
31. Arbuckle JL. Amos 16 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc; 2007.
32. Efron B. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Montpelier, Vermont: Capital City Press; 1982.
33. Cirincione C, Gurrieri GA. Research methodology: Computer intensive methods in the social sciences. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 1997;15:83-97.
34. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
35. Bollen KA. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.
36. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equat Model. 2007;14:464-504.
37. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6:1-55.
38. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.
39. Wu AD, Li Z, Zumbo BD. Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: a demonstration with TIMSS data. Pract Assess Res Evaluat. 2007;12:1.
40. Byrne BM, Stewart SM. Teacher's corner: the MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: a walk through the process. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006;13:287.
41. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing hu and bentler. Struct Equat Model. 2004;11:22.
42. Sobel ME, Bohrnstedt GW. Use of null models in evaluating the fit of covariance structure models. Sociol Methodol. 1985;15:152-178.
43. Angel JL, Angel RJ. Age at migration, social connections, and wellbeing among elderly Hispanics. J Aging Health. 1992;4:480-499.
44. Angel R, Thoits P. The impact of culture on the cognitive structure of illness. Culture Med Psychiatry. 1987;11:465-494.
45. McHorney CA, Fleishman JA. Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Med Care. 2006;44:S205-S210. (Pubitemid 44632047)
46. Morales LS, Diamant A, Hays RD. Factorial invariance of the SF-12 in US Spanish and English speaking survey respondents. Quality of Live Research. 2000;9:319.