Measurement equivalence of the SF-36 in the canadian multicentre osteoporosis study

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 10, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Lix, Lisa M ^a   Acan Osman, Beliz ^b   Adachi, Jonathan D ^c   Towheed, Tanveer ^d   Hopman, Wilma ^d   Davison, K Shawn ^a   Leslie, William D ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^b Health Quality Council   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Equivalence; Health related quality of life; Psychometrics; Sf 36

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CAUCASIAN; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE; OSTEOPOROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RACE; SEX; SHORT FORM 36; STATISTICAL MODEL; AGE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABILITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITALIZATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOLOGIC FRACTURE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CANADA; COHORT STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; FRACTURES, SPONTANEOUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOPOROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84857946325     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-29     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245451.67862.57, 17060829.
2. Keller SD, Ware JE, Bentler PM, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, 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. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1179-1188. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00110-3, 9817136.
3. Meredith W, Teresi JA. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care 2006, 44:S69-S77. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89, 17060838.
4. Lubetkin EI, Jia H, Franks P, Gold MR. Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:2187-2196. 10.1007/s11136-005-8028-5, 16328899.
5. Avis NE, Assmann SF, Kravitz HM, Ganz PA, Ory M. Quality of life in diverse groups of midlife women: Assessing the influence of menopause, health status and psychosocial and demographic factors. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:933-946.
6. Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, Joseph L, Brown JP, Murray TM, Adachi JD, et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Can Med Assoc J 2000, 163:265-271.
7. Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Berger C, Joseph L, Papaioannou A, Pickard L, Papadimitropoulos EA, Hopman W, Poliquin S, Prior JC, et al. The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada. Osteoporos Int 2001, 12:903-908. 10.1007/s001980170017, 11804016.
8. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Corbiere M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley J, Cohen R. Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift?. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:611-627. 10.1007/s11136-004-3708-0, 16022056.
9. Wood-Dauphinee S, Gauthier L, Gandek B, Magnan L, Pierre U. Readying a US measure of health status, the SF-36, for use in Canada. Clin Invest Med 1997, 20:224-238.
10. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide 1993, Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.
11. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 2000, 3:4-70.
12. Horn JL, McArdle JJ. A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invariance in Aging Research. Exp Aging Res 1992, 18:117-144. 10.1080/03610739208253916, 1459160.
13. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-162. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Bollen K, Long JS.
14. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999, 6:1-55.
15. Bentler PM. Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychol Bull 1990, 107:238-246.
16. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002, 9:233-255.
17. Mardia KV. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhya Ser B 1974, 36:115-128.
18. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 2001, 66:507-514.
19. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. Lisrel 8: user's reference guide 1996, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
20. Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care 2006, 44:S78-S94. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f, 1808350, 17060839.
21. 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. PARE 2007, 12(3)., http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=3
22. Regidor E, Barrio B, de la Fuente L, Domingo A, Rodiguez C, Alonso J. Association between educational level and health related quality of life in Spanish adults. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999, 53:75-82. 10.1136/jech.53.2.75, 1756832, 10396467.
23. Lix LM, Metge C, Leslie WD. Measurement equivalence of osteoporosis-specific and general quality-of-life instruments in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:619-627. 10.1007/s11136-009-9470-6, 19330537.
24. Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, Cook KF, Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Morales LS, Orlando-Edelen M, Cella D. Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:43-68. 10.1007/s11136-007-9186-4, 17484039.