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
- 115 Downloads
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.
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 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.
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 wordsConfirmatory factor analysis HAQ-DI Latent analysis Rheumatoid arthritis Systemic sclerosis
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 31.Arbuckle JL. Amos. In. 6.0 ed. Chicago: Small Waters, 2005Google Scholar
- 35.Bollen K, Stine RA (1992) Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Method Res 21:205–229Google Scholar
- 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
- 38.Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (1996) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equation Model 9:223–255Google Scholar
- 43.Arbuckle JL, Wothke W. Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, 4.01 ed. Chicago: Small Waters, 1999Google Scholar
- 44.Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
- 46.Anastasi A, Urbina S (1998) Psychological Testing. 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
- 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.Muthén BO, Muthén LK (2004) Mplus 3.0 User’s Guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- 49.Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
- 50.Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A First Course in Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Byrne BM (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
- 54.Bentler PM, Chou C (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Method Res 16:78–117Google Scholar
- 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