Assessing the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey for immigrant and Australian-born cancer patients: a Rasch analysis
- 257 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to assess the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey.
A cross-sectional study was conducted among immigrants of Arabic-, Chinese- and Greek-speaking backgrounds, and Anglo-Australian-born controls, recruited through Cancer Registries (n = 591) and oncology clinics (n = 900). The survey included four subscales, with newly developed items addressing unmet need in culturally competent health information and patient support (CCHIPS), and items adapted from existing questionnaires addressing physical and daily living (PDL), sexuality (SEX) and survivorship (SURV) unmet need. The survey was translated into Arabic, Chinese and Greek. Rasch analysis was carried out on the four domains.
Whilst many items were mistargeted to less prevalent areas of unmet need, causing substantial floor effects in person estimates, reliability indices were acceptable. The CCHIPS domain showed differential item functioning (DIF) for cultural background and language, and the PDL domain showed DIF for treatment phase and gender. The results for SEX and SURV domains were limited by floor effects and missing responses. All domains showed adequate fit to the model after DIF was resolved and a small number of items were deleted.
The study highlights the intricacies in designing a culturally competent survey that can be applied to culturally and linguistically diverse groups across different treatment contexts. Overall, the results demonstrate that this survey is somewhat invariant with respect to these factors. Future refinements are suggested to enhance the survey’s cultural competence and general validity.
KeywordsUnmet needs Cancer Immigrants Cultural competence Rasch analysis Differential item functioning
- 9.Moore, R., & Butow, P. (2005). Culture and oncology: Impact of context effects. In D. Speigel (Ed.), Cancer, communication and culture. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- 13.Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J.-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. Medical Care, 42(1), I37–I48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- 20.Choi, Y., Mericle, A., & Harachi, T. W. (2006). Using Rasch analysis to test the cross-cultural item equivalence of the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist across Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrant mothers. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7(1), 16.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Bell, M. L., Butow, P. N., and Goldstein, D. (2013). Informatively missing quality of life and unmet needs sex data for immigrant and Anglo-Australian cancer patients and survivors. Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 1–4.Google Scholar
- 26.Schuman, H. (1966). The random probe: A technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions. American Sociological Review, 31(2), 218–222.Google Scholar
- 27.Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). Rasch models for measurement: RUMM2030. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.Google Scholar
- 28.Chen, W.-H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K., Gelhorn, H., et al. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 485–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Linacre, M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328.Google Scholar
- 34.Andrich, D. (2005). The Rasch model explained. In S. Alagumalai, D. Durtis, & N. Hungi (Eds.), Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars (pp. 308–328). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- 35.McKenna, S. P., Wilburn, J., Thorsen, H., & Brodersen, J. (2012). Adapting patient-reported outcome measures for use in new languages and cultures. In K. B. Christensen, S. Kreiner, & M. Mesbah (Eds.), Rasch models in health (pp. 303–315). London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 38.ABS, Australian Social Trends (4102.0). A.B.o. Statistics, Editor 2010, AGPS: Canberra.Google Scholar
- 40.Flynn, K. E., Jeffery, D. D., Keefe, F. J., Porter, L. S., Shelby, R. A., et al. (2011). Sexual functioning along the cancer continuum: Focus group results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®). Psycho-Oncology, 20(4), 378–386.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar