Measurement invariance of English and French Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) empowerment scales validated for cancer
If measurement invariance (MI) is demonstrated for a scale completed by respondents from two different language groups, it means that the scale measures the same construct in the same way in both groups. We assessed MI of the French- and English-language versions of the five Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) empowerment scales validated for the cancer setting.
Data came from two cross-sectional studies of Canadian cancer survivors (704 English, 520 French). Single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test whether the hypothesized factor structure of the French-language heiQ empowerment scales fit the data. Multi-group CFAs were conducted to assess different levels of MI conditions (configural, metric, scalar, strict, as well as MI of factor variances, covariances, and latent means) of the French- and English-language heiQ empowerment scales.
The correlated five-factor model showed good fit in both language groups (goodness-of-fit indices: CFI ≥ .97; RMSEA ≤ .07). Goodness-of-fit indices and tests of differences in fit between models supported MI of the five-factor model across the two language groups (∆CFI ≤ −.010 combined with ∆RMSEA ≤ .015).
The French- and English-language heiQ empowerment scales measure the same five dimensions of empowerment in the same way across both language groups. Thus, any observed similarities or differences between French- and English-speaking respondents completing these scales are valid and reflect similarities or differences in empowerment across language groups, not measurement artifact. Consequently, heiQ empowerment data from English- and French-speaking respondents can be directly pooled or contrasted in data analyses.
KeywordsEmpowerment Cancer Language invariance Validation studies Outcome assessment (health care) Translation
- 2.McCorkle, R., Ercolano, E., Lazenby, M., Schulman-Green, D., Schilling, L. S., Lorig, K., et al. (2011). Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 61(1), 50–62.Google Scholar
- 8.National Cancer Institute. Dictionary of cancer terms. www.cancer.gov/dictionary. Accessed 15 December 2014.
- 9.Osborne, R. H., Elsworth, G. R., & Whitfield, K. (2007). The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): An outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Education and Counseling, 66(2), 192–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Buchbinder, R., Batterham, R., Elsworth, G., Dionne, C. E., Irvin, E., & Osborne, R. H. (2011). A validity-driven approach to the understanding of the personal and societal burden of low back pain: Development of a conceptual and measurement model. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 13(5), R152.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kroon, F. P. B., van Der Burg, L. R. A., Buchbinder, R., Osborne, R. H., Johnston, R. V., & Pitt, V. (2014). Self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis (review). Cochrane database of systematic reviews, issue 1. Art. no.: CD008963. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008963.pub2.
- 13.Osborne, R. H., Batterham, R., & Livingston, J. (2011). The quality, impact and implementation of chronic disease self-management across settings: The international experience of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) quality monitoring system. Nursing Clinics of North America, 46(2), 255–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Schuler, M., Musekamp, G., Bengel, J., Nolte, S., Osborne, R. H., & Faller, H. (2014). Measurement invariance across chronic conditions: A systematic review and an empirical investigation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ™). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(56). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-56.
- 19.Fillion, S., & Cook, S. (2012). Final report: Navigation Project CPAC and CIHR April 2007 to March 2012. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
- 20.Hawkins, M., & Osborne, R. (2007). Questionnaire translation and cultural adaptation procedure. Version 1.0. University of Melbourne, Australia, p. 9.Google Scholar
- 23.Willis, G. B. (1999, August). Cognitive interviewing: A “how to” guide. In Meeting of the American statistical association.Google Scholar
- 24.Kornblith, A. B. (1998). Psychosocial adaptation of cancer survivors. In J. C. Holland, W. Breitbart, P. B. Jacobsen, M. S. Lederberg, M. Loscalzo, M. J. Massie, & R. McCorkle (Eds.), Psycho-oncology (pp. 223–241). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 25.Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
- 27.Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
- 31.Morita, R., Arakida, M., Osborne, R. H., Nolte, N., Elsworth, G. R., & Mikami, H. (2013). Adaptation and validation of the Japanese version of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) for the evaluation of self-management education interventions. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 10(2), 255–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar