Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 509–513 | Cite as

Use of factor analysis models to evaluate measurement invariance property of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)

Brief Communication

Abstract

Purposes

To demonstrate the assessment of measurement invariance property in a health status instrument and to increase the awareness of its importance, we evaluate the measurement invariance of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) across age and gender subgroups.

Methods

Data are obtained from children 7–12 years of age at entry into a randomized trial, which evaluates the effect of a telephone coaching program on improving asthma outcome. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis is used to assess the comparability of factor loadings and intercepts across age and gender subgroups. Since age is a continuous variable, two different categorizations (7–10 vs 11–12 and 7–9 vs 10–12) are analyzed.

Results

The factor loadings and intercepts of all six items in ACQ are comparable across gender subgroups. Although the factor loadings are comparable across age 7–10 and 11–12 subgroups, one intercept is statistically but not practically different. For age 7–9 versus 10–12 subgroup comparison, the factor loadings are not comparable.

Conclusion

In children, the ACQ can be used to compare asthma control construct between boys and girls and between age 7–10 and 11–12 subgroups. Measurement invariance is an important property that should be examined when the latent construct(s) are compared across different subgroups.

Keywords

Asthma Control Questionnaire Measurement invariance Factor analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Juniper, E. F., O’Byrne, P. M., Guyatt, G. H., Ferrie, P. J., & King, D. R. (1999). Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure asthma control. European Respiratory Journal, 14, 902–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juniper, E. F., Gruffydd-Jones, K., Ward, S., & Svensson, K. (2010). Asthma Control Questionnaire in children: Validation, measurement properties, interpretation. European Respiratory Journal, 36, 1410–1416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juniper, E. F., Svensson, K., Mork, A. C., & Stahl, E. (2005). Measurement properties and interpretation of three shortened versions of the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Respiratory Medicine, 99, 553–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garbutt, J. M., Highstein, G., Yan, Y., & Strunk, R. C. (2012). Partner randomized controlled trial: Study protocol and coaching intervention. BMC Pediatrics, 12, 42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Little, T. D., & Slegers, D. W. (2005). Factor analysis: Multiple groups. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 617–623). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariate structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    SAS. SAS Institute Inc. (2010). SAS/STAT software. Release 9.3 Edition. Release 9.1 ed. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muthen, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide. (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2013). BSEM measurement invariance analysis. Web note 17.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Yan
    • 1
  • Wei Wu
    • 2
  • Robert C. Strunk
    • 1
  • Jane Garbutt
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington University Medical SchoolSt LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations