Quality of Life Research

, 15:1383 | Cite as

Single-factor scoring validation for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in patients with systemic sclerosis and comparison with early rheumatoid arthritis patients

  • Jason C. Cole
  • Dinesh Khanna
  • Philip J. Clements
  • James R. Seibold
  • Donald P. Tashkin
  • Harold E. Paulus
  • Michael R. Irwin
  • Sarosh J. Motivala
  • Daniel E. Furst
  • and on behalf of the Scleroderma Lung Study (SLS) and Relaxin Study
Original Paper

Abstract

Objective

Structural validity for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) has recently been provided for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The goal of the current study was to examine the structural validity of the HAQ-DI in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma) and to compare its performance with that in patients with RA.

Methods

The HAQ-DI structural validity was first assessed in a sample of 100 scleroderma patients using confirmatory factor analysis. Second, the similarity of factor structures between SSc patients (n = 291) and RA patients (n = 278) was tested using a multigroup structural validity model to assure that comparison of scores between these two diagnostic groups is appropriate.

Results

Results yielded a single-factor HAQ-DI score which favored the current scoring system of the HAQ-DI (model fit was CFI = 0.99 and RMSEA = 0.04). Moreover, even the most stringent model of multigroup structural validity affirmed the similarity between SSc and RA patients on the HAQ-DI (model fit was CFI = 0.99 and RMSEA = 0.04) nor was it different from a model without any demands on group similarity: CFI difference = 0.007; χ2 = 4.29, df = 26, p=0.99.

Conclusion

The current results indicate that a single-factor HAQ-DI is appropriate for future clinical trials in scleroderma and, in addition, HAQ-DI scores among patients with SSc and early RA can be compared legitimately with one another.

Key words

Confirmatory factor analysis HAQ-DI Latent analysis Rheumatoid arthritis Systemic sclerosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Khanna was supported in part by the Arthritis and Scleroderma Foundations (Physician Scientist Development Award), the Scleroderma Foundation (New Investigator Grant), a National Institutes of Health K12 BIRWCH Scholar Award, the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium, and the Scleroderma Lung Study by Grant No. UO1 HL60587.

References

  1. 1.
    Medsger Jr TA (1997) System sclerosis: Clinical aspects. In: Koopman W (eds) Arthritis and Allied Conditions. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 1433–1464Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR (1980) Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 23:137–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cole JC, Motivala SJ, Khanna D, Lee JY, Paulus HE, Irwin MR (2005) Validation of a single-factor structure and the scoring protocol for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Arthritis Care Res 53:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khanna D, Clements PJ, Furst DE, Chon Y, Elashoff R, Roth MD (2005) Correlation of the degree of dyspnea with health-related quality of life, functional abilities, and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide in patients with system sclerosis and active alveolitis: Results from the Scleroderma Lung Study. Arthritis Rheum 52:592–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khanna D, Furst DE, Clements PJ, Park GS, Hays RD, Yoon J, et al. (2005) Responsiveness of the SF-36 and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index in a systemic sclerosis clinical trial. J Rheumatol 32:832–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clements PJ, Wong WK, Hurwitz EL, Furst DE, Mayes MD, White B, et al (2001) The disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire is a predictor and correlate of outcome in the high-dose versus low-dose penicillamine in system sclerosis trial. Arthritis Rheum 44:653–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Messick S (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50:741–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES (1995) Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 7:238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Method 3:4–70Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meade AW, Lautenschlager GJ (2004) A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organ Res Method 7:361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seibold JR, Clements PJ, Korn JH, Ellman M, Rothfield N, Wigley FM, et al (2001) US phase III trial of relaxin in diffuse scleroderma [Abstract]. J Rheumatol 63S:T-64Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Subcommittee for scleroderma criteria of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee. J Rheumatol 1980; 23: 581–590Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clements PJ, Hurwitz EL, Wong WK, Seibold JR, Mayes MD, White B, et al (2000) Skin thickness score as a predictor and correlate of outcome in systemic sclerosis: High-dose versus low-dose penicillamine trial. Arthritis Rheum 43:2445–2454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tashkin DP, Elashoff D, Clements PJ, Golding JM, Roth MD et al. Cyclophosphamide versus placebo in scleroderma lung disease. New Engl J Med (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khanna D, Ranganath VK, Fitzgerald J, Park GS, Altman RD, Elashoff D, et al (2005) Increased radiographic damage scores at the onset of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis in older patients are associated with osteoarthritis of the hands but not with more rapid progression of damage. Arthritis Rheum 52:2284–2292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu H, Khanna D, Park GS, Gersuk V, Nepom GT, Wong WK, et al (2004) Interaction between RANKL and HLA-DRB1 genotypes may contribute to younger age at onset of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis in an inception cohort. Arthritis Rheum 50:3093–3103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clements PJ, Wong WK, Hurwitz EL, Furst DE, Mayes MD, White B, et al (1999) Correlates of the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire: A measure of functional impairment in systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum 42:2372–2380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khanna D, Furst DE, Clements PJ, Park GS, Hays RD, Seibold JR (2003) Responsiveness of the health related quality of life instruments (sf-36 and HAQ-DI) in a systemic sclerosis clinical trial [Abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 48:S398Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar A, Malaviya AN, Pandhi A, Singh R (2002) Validation of an Indian of the Health Assessment Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 41:1457–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    El Meidany YM, El Gaafary MM, Ahmed I (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an Arabic Health Assessment Questionnaire for use in rheumatoid patients. Joint Bone Spine 70:195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    El Meidany YM, Youssef S, El Gaafary MM, Ahmed I (2003) Evaluating changes in health status: sensitivity to change of the modified Arabic Health Assessment Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Joint Bone Spine 70:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH, Keystone EC, et al (2000) A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. New Engl J Med 343:1586–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lipsky PE, van der Heijde DM, St. Clair EW, Smolen JS, Furst JS, Kalden JR, et al (2000) 102-week clinical and radiologic results from the ATTRACT trial: A 2-year, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial of infliximab in patients with active RA despite MTX. Arthritis Rheum 43:S269Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinblatt ME, Keystone EC, Furst DE, Moreland LW, Weisman MH, Birbara CA, et al (2003) Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patient taking concomitant methotrexate: The ARMADA trial. Arthritis Rheum 48:35–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DJ (1998) The long term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis: Work disability: A prospective 18 year study of 823 patients. J Rheumatol 25:2108–2117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolfe F (2002) The determination and measurement of functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res 4:S11–S15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Gefeller O, Choi HK (2003) Predicting mortality in patient with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 48:1530–1542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruce B, Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: Dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westhovens R, Cole JC, Li T, Martin M, MacLean R, Lin␣P et al. Improved health-related quality of life for rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with abatacept who have inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Rheumatology (in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance modeling. Psychol Method 1:130–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arbuckle JL. Amos. In. 6.0 ed. Chicago: Small Waters, 2005Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cole JC, Motivala SJ, Dang J, Lucko A, Lang N, Levin MJ, et al (2004) Structural validation of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 26:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cole JC, Rabin AS, Smith TL, Kaufman AS (2004) Development and validation of a Rasch-derived CES-D short form. Psychol Assess 16:360–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nevitt J, Hancock GR (2000) Improving the root mean square error of approximation for nonnormal conditions in structural equation modeling. J Exp Educ 68:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bollen K, Stine RA (1992) Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Method Res 21:205–229Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Finney SJ, DiStefano C (2006) Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, (eds). Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. IAP, Greenwich, CT, pp 269–314Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nevitt J, Hancock GR (2004) Evaluating small sample approaches for model test statistics in structural equation modeling. Multivar Behav Res 39:439–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (1996) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Wen Z (2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equation Model 11:320–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 588–606Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model 6:1–55Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equation Model 9:223–255Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arbuckle JL, Wothke W. Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, 4.01 ed. Chicago: Small Waters, 1999Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Palmer RF, Graham JW, Taylor B, Tatterson J (2002) Construct validity in health behavior research: Interpreting latent variable models involving self-report and objective measures. J Behav Med 25:525–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Anastasi A, Urbina S (1998) Psychological Testing. 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hershberger SL (2006) The problem of equivalent structural models. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO (eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. IAP, Greenwich, CT, pp 13–42Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Muthén BO, Muthén LK (2004) Mplus 3.0 User’s Guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A First Course in Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (eds) Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 1–1Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Grayson D (2005) Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In: Maydeu-Olivares A, McArdle JJ (eds) Contemporary Psychometrics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 275–340Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Byrne BM (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bentler PM, Chou C (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Method Res 16:78–117Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hancock GR (2006) Power analysis in covariance structure modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO (eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. IAP, Greenwich, CT, pp 69–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason C. Cole
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dinesh Khanna
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Philip J. Clements
    • 6
  • James R. Seibold
    • 7
  • Donald P. Tashkin
    • 8
  • Harold E. Paulus
    • 6
  • Michael R. Irwin
    • 9
  • Sarosh J. Motivala
    • 9
  • Daniel E. Furst
    • 6
  • and on behalf of the Scleroderma Lung Study (SLS) and Relaxin Study
  1. 1.Consulting Measurement GroupHuntington BeachUSA
  2. 2.QualityMetricLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Division of Immunology, Department of MedicineUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  4. 4.Institute for the Study of HealthUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  5. 5.Veterans Affairs Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  6. 6.Division of Rheumatology, Department of MedicineUniversity of California, Los Angeles – David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Division of RheumatologyUniversity of Michigan Scleroderma ProgramAnn ArborUSA
  8. 8.Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of California, Los Angeles – David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  9. 9.University of California, Los Angeles – Cousins Center for PsychoneuroimmunologyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations