Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, 16:101 | Cite as

Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy

  • Paul K. Crane
  • Laura E. Gibbons
  • Kaavya Narasimhalu
  • Jin-Shei Lai
  • David Cella
Article

Abstract

Reason for study

Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when a test item functions differently in different groups when controlling for the level of the underlying construct measured by the test. DIF assessment is a first step in the evaluation of test bias. We sought to demonstrate a rapid hybrid approach to DIF detection by determining the presence and scale-level impact of DIF related to eight covariates in four domains measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT).

Major findings

The number of items found with DIF in each domain depended on the criterion chosen to define the presence of DIF. With a few exceptions, scale-level differential functioning was similar regardless of the criteria chosen. For physical well-being, there was relevant scale-level differential functioning related only to race. For social and family well-being, there was relevant scale-level differential functioning related to each of the covariates. For emotional well-being, there was relevant scale-level differential functioning related to ethnicity, language, and race. For functional well-being, there was relevant scale-level differential functioning related to ethnicity, race, education, and self- vs. interviewer-administration.

Principal conclusions

Our rapid hybrid approach to DIF detection may be broadly applicable in other studies of health-related quality of life.

Keywords

Differential item functioning item response theory ordinal logistic regression test bias 

Abbreviations

DIF

differential item functioning. DIF occurs when item has different statistical properties in different groups when controlling for the underlying trait or ability measured by the test

FACT

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy; FACT-G is the FACT-General. This is a widely used assessment system for functioning and well-being. It assesses five domains, four of which are analyzed in this paper: physical well-being (PWB), social and family well-being (SFWB), emotional well-being (EWB), and functional well-being (FWB)

HRQL

health-related quality of life

IRT

item response theory. This is a technique for analyzing item-level test data based on the premise that item responses are a function of the relationship between an underlying latent trait and characteristics of the item

Notes

Acknowledgements

Drs. Crane and Gibbons and Ms. Narasimhalu were supported by grant K08 022232 from the National Institute on Aging. Drs. Cella and Lai were supported by R01 61679 from the National Cancer Institute. A portion of this work was presented at the 2005 International Society for Quality of Life Research in San Francisco.

References

  1. 1.
    Camilli G, Shepard LA (1994) Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Millsap RE, Everson HT (1993) Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Measurement 17:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holland PW, Wainer H (eds) (1993) Differential Item Functioning. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin M, Blaisdell B, Kwong JW, Bjorner JB (2004) The Short-Form Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was psychometrically equivalent in nine languages. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1271–1278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M et al. (2004) Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 63:36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prieto L, Novick D, Sacristan JA, Edgell ET, Alonso J. A Rasch model analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of the EuroQoL-5D in the Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes Study. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2003; 24–29Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moorer P, Suurmeije Th P, Foets M, Molenaar IW (2001) Psychometric properties of the RAND-36 among three chronic diseases (multiple sclerosis, rheumatic diseases and COPD) in The Netherlands. Qual Life Res 10:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, Damsgaard MT, Bech P (1998) Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1189–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Klee MC, Kreiner S (1995) Test for item bias in a quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 48: 805–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hahn EA, Holzner B, Kemmler G, Sperner-Unterweger B, Hudgens SA, Cella D (2005) Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Eval Health Prof 28: 233-59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kutlay S, Kucukdeveci AA, Gonul D, Tennant A (2003) Adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life Scale. Rheumatol Int 23: 21–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Bjorner JB et al. (2003) Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res 12: 373–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L et al. (2004) Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 42: I37–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pagano IS, Gotay CC (2005) Ethnic differential item functioning in the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3: 60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dancer LS, Anderson AJ, Derlin RL (1994) Use of log-linear models for assessing differential item functioning in a measure of psychological functioning. J Consult Clin Psychol 62: 710–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleishman JA, Spector WD, Altman BM (2002) Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 57: S275–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagell P, Whalley D, McKenna SP, Lindvall O (2003) Health status measurement in Parkinson’s disease: validity of the PDQ-39 and Nottingham Health Profile. Mov Disord 18: 773–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF (2003) Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Med Care 41: III75-III86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu AW, Jacobson DL, Berzon RA et al. (1997) The effect of mode of administration on medical outcomes study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS. Qual Life Res 6: 3–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia-Losa M, Unda M, Badia X et al. (2001) Effect of mode of administration on I-PSS scores in a large BPH patient population. Eur Urol 40: 451–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bozlu M, Doruk E, Akbay E et al. (2002) Effect of administration mode (patient vs physician) and patient’s educational level on the Turkish version of the International Prostate Symptom Score. Int J Urol 9: 417–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, Landsman PB (1996) Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration?. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 135–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crane PK, van Belle G, Larson EB (2004) Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat Med 23:241–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G (2006) DIF analysis with ordinal logistic regression: DIFdetect. Med Care (in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wagle AC, Berrios GE, Ho L (1999) The cognitive failures questionnaire in psychiatry. Compr Psychiatry 40: 478–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cella D (1994) Manual for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) Scales (Version 3). Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al. (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11: 570–579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cella DF, Bonomi AE. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) quality of life measurement system. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. NY: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonomi AE, Cella DF, Hahn EA et al. (1996) Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res 5: 309–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cella D, Hernandez L, Bonomi AE et al. (1998) Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Med Care 36: 1407–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cella DF (1997) Manual for the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Scales (Version 4). Center on Outcomes, Research, and Education (CORE), Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern University, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F, Hernandez L, Tulsky DS, Cella D (1999) Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res 8: 181–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Woodcock RW, Johnson MB (1990) Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-educational Battery. DLM Teaching Resources, Allen, TXGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muraki E, Bock D. PARSCALE for Windows, version 4.1. Chicago: Scientific Software International, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph 1969; No. 17.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Samejima F. Graded response model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. NY: Springer, 1997Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 8.0.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maldonado G, Greenland S (1993) Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol 138: 923–936PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Crane PK, Hart DL, Gibbons LE, Cook KF (2006) A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. J Clin Epidemiol 59: 478–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH (2002) Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 114: 552–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE (2002) Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage 24: 547–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ et al. (2004) A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 57:898–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, Glendenning GA, Gnanasakthy A, Cella D (2005) Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health 8: 117–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shealy RT, Stout WF. An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds.), Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1993Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Williams DR (2005) The health of US racial and ethnic populations. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60(Spec No 2): 53–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams DR, Jackson PB (2005) Social sources of racial disparities in health. Health Aff (Millwood) 24: 325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. In: Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR (eds), Washington, DC.: National Academy Press, 2002Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wan GJ, Counte MA, Cella DF, Hernandez L, McGuire DB, Deasay S, Shiomoto G, Hahn EA (1999) The impact of socio-cultural and clinical factors on health-related quality of life reports among Hispanic and African-American cancer patients. J Outcome Meas 3: 200–15PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul K. Crane
    • 1
  • Laura E. Gibbons
    • 1
  • Kaavya Narasimhalu
    • 1
  • Jin-Shei Lai
    • 2
  • David Cella
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Washington, Harborview Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations