Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 507–511 | Cite as

Measurement invariance of the 16-item social distress scale

  • Adam B. SmithEmail author
  • Penny Wright
  • Peter Selby
  • Galina Velikova



The SD-16 is a 16-item instrument assessing social distress in cancer patients. In addition to work underlining the scale’s reliability, validity and clinical utility, recent research has also determined minimally important differences (MID) for the instrument. The aim of this study was to assess whether item locations remained stable over time, in order to support the longitudinal use of the instrument.


Data were collated from cancer patients (N = 123) who had completed the SD-16 at four time points (baseline, 6 months, 1 and 2 years). The Partial Credit Model (Rasch analysis) was applied to the data and item fit evaluated against published criteria. Measurement invariance of item location and person measures over time was assessed using analysis of variance.


Good item fit was found with the exception of one item (“work”), which demonstrated misfit at two time points. No statistically significant differences were found for item locations. As anticipated, there were changes over time in patients’ scores, particularly in the first 6 months.


The instrument can be used longitudinally to accurately assess changes in cancer patients’ social distress.


Social distress Rasch Longitudinal Cancer 



The authors wish to express their thanks to the patients who completed the questionnaires, the staff for facilitating the study, and the research assistants who collected the data. This work was supported by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK.


  1. 1.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14, 373–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guidance on cancer services: Improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. London, UK: NICE.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright, P., Smith, A., Roberts, K., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Screening for social difficulties in cancer patients: Clinical utility of the Social Difficulties Inventory. British Journal of Cancer, 97, 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M. A., Lynch, P., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87(10), 1099–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Measuring social difficulties in routine patient-centred assessment: A Rasch analysis of the social difficulties inventory. Quality of Life Research, 16, 823–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department of Health, Macmillan Cancer Support, NHS Improvement. (2010). The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative Vision. London 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright, P., Marshall, L., Smith, A. B., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI-21). European Journal of Cancer, 44(11), 1529–1535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 711–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 29(8), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linacre, J. M. (2005). A User’s Guide to Winsteps/Ministeps Rasch- Model Programs. MESA Press: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright, B. D., & Panchapakesan, N. (1969). A procedure for sample-free item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 998–1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam B. Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Penny Wright
    • 2
  • Peter Selby
    • 2
  • Galina Velikova
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Health & Social Care, Leeds Institute of Health SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Cancer Research—UK Psychosocial and Clinical Practice Research GroupSt. James’s University HospitalLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations