Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Calibration of a physical functioning item bank for measurement of health-related quality of life in Singapore

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to develop and calibrate an item bank to measure physical function (PF) in Singapore, a multi-ethnic city in Southeast Asia.

Methods

We recruited participants from community and hospital settings stratified for age and gender, with and without medical conditions to administer candidate pool of 61-items derived from the people’s perspectives. We calibrated their responses using Samejima’s graded response model of item response theory (IRT), including model assumptions, model fit, differential item functioning (DIF), and concurrent and known-groups validity.

Results

496 participants (50% male; 41% above 50 years old; 33.3% Chinese, 32.7% Malay and 34.1% Indian; 35% without chronic illness) were included in the calibration of item bank. 6 items were excluded due to mis-fit and local dependence. Redundancies in the response level was collapsed and re-scoring, while preserving the 5-level response structure. We found the final 55-item PF bank had adequate fit to IRT assumptions of unidimensionality, local independence and monotonicity. Items generally showed discernible ceiling effects with latent scores between − 3.5 to + 1.5. We found no DIF with gender, ethnicity or education. The PF scores correlated in the hypothesized direction with self-reported global health (Spearman’s rho =  − 0.35, 95% confidence intervals − 0.43 to − 0.27) and discriminated between groups stratified by age, gender and medical conditions.

Conclusion

The 55-item Singapore PF item bank provides an adequate tool for measuring the lower end of PF, with greatest potential utility in healthcare settings where restoration to normal physical functioning is the goal of intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Report, H. P. F. H. M. (2020). Health-related quality of life and well-being. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/Health-Related-Quality-of-Life-and-Well-Being.

  2. Testa, M. A., & Simonson, D. C. (1996). Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 334(13), 835–840. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603283341306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sajid, M. S., Tonsi, A., & Baig, M. K. (2008). Health-related quality of life measurement. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 21(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860810880162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. (1946). Health related quality of life (HRQOL). Preamble to the constitution of WHO as adopted by the international health conference. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Services UDoHAH. (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.

  6. European Medicines Agency CfMPfHU. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf.

  7. Hilarius, D. L., Kloeg, P. H., Gundy, C. M., & Aaronson, N. K. (2008). Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: A community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer, 113(3), 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(23), 3027–3034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pang, S., Subramaniam, M., Lee, S. P., Lau, Y. W., Abdin, E., Chua, B. Y., et al. (2017). The Singaporean public beliefs about the causes of mental illness: Results from a multi-ethnic population-based study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796017000105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Nakane, Y., Jorm, A. F., Yoshioka, K., Christensen, H., Nakane, H., & Griffiths, K. M. (2005). Public beliefs about causes and risk factors for mental disorders: A comparison of Japan and Australia. BMC Psychiatry, 5, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-5-33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Thumboo, J., Fong, K. Y., Machin, D., Chan, S. P., Leon, K. H., Feng, P. H., et al. (2001). A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 10(2), 175–188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fukuhara, S., Bito, S., Green, J., Hsiao, A., & Kurokawa, K. (1998). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1037–1044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Thumboo, J., Ow, M. Y. L., Uy, E. J. B., Xin, X., Chan, Z. Y. C., Sung, S. C., et al. (2018). Developing a comprehensive, culturally sensitive conceptual framework of health domains in Singapore. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0199881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Uy, E. J. B., Bautista, D. C., Xin, X., Cheung, Y. B., Thio, S. T., & Thumboo, J. (2018). Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to elicit the most important domains of health for health-related quality of life in Singapore. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0189687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189687.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Uy, E. J. B., Xiao, L. Y. S., Xin, X., Yeo, J. P. T., Pua, Y. H., Lee, G. L., et al. (2020). Developing item banks to measure three important domains of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Singapore. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1255-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Health, S. M. O. (2014). Singapore Burden of disease study 2010. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/singapore-health-facts/disease-burden.

  17. Census of Population 2010. (2010). Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/cop2010/census10_stat_release3.

  18. Health, S. M. O. (2005). National Health Survey 2004. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/reports/national-health-survey-2004.

  19. Health, S. M. O. (2009). National Health Survey 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/reports/national-healthsurveillancesurvey-2007.

  20. CASRO, COASRO. (1982). On the definition of response rates. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.insightsassociation.org/issues-policies/best-practice/casro-definition-response-rates.

  21. Kwan, Y. H., Uy, E. J., Bautista, D. C., Xin, X., Xiao, Y., Lee, G. L., et al. (2019). Development and calibration of a novel social relationship item bank to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Singapore. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes., 17(1), 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. PROMIS Instrument Development and Validation Scientific Standards Version 2.0 (2013).

  24. Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W. H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  26. IBM Support. (2017). Obtaining likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning (DIF) in IBM SPSS Statistics. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/obtaining-likelihood-ratio-tests-differential-item-functioning-dif-ibm-spss-statistics.

  27. Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fries, J. F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R. G., & Holman, H. R. (1980). Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 23(2), 137–145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Leung, Y. Y., Bin-Abd-Razak, H. R., Talaei, M., Ang, L. W., Yuan, J. M., & Koh, W. P. (2018). Duration of physical activity, sitting, sleep and the risk of total knee replacement among Chinese in Singapore, the Singapore Chinese Health Study. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0202554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202554.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L. B., Bull, F. C., Guthold, R., Haskell, W., Ekelund, U., et al. (2012). Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. The Lancet, 380(9838), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all participants who gave valuable inputs to the item pool, and those who administered the item bank.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Medical Research Council Health Services Research grant (HSRG/0034/2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Thumboo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JT has received support from the National Medical Research Council (HSRG/0034/2013). YYL has received salary support from the Singapore National Medical Research Council (NMRC/CSA-INV/0022/2012). All authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 148 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leung, Y.Y., Uy, E.J.B., Bautista, D.C. et al. Calibration of a physical functioning item bank for measurement of health-related quality of life in Singapore. Qual Life Res 29, 2823–2833 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02535-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02535-0

Keywords

Navigation