Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 2375–2384 | Cite as

Measurement invariance of English and French Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) empowerment scales validated for cancer

  • Jennifer Brunet
  • Sophie Lauzier
  • H. Sharon Campbell
  • Lise Fillion
  • Richard H. Osborne
  • Elizabeth Maunsell
Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Empowerment Cancer Language invariance Validation studies Outcome assessment (health care) Translation 

References

  1. 1.
    Maunsell, E., Lauzier, S., Brunet, J., Pelletier, S., Osborne, R. H., & Campbell, H. S. (2014). Health-related empowerment in cancer: Validity of scales from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire. Cancer, 120(20), 3228–3236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Lauzier, S., Campbell, H. S., Livingston, P. M., & Maunsell, E. (2014). Indicators for evaluating cancer organizations’ support services: Performance and associations with empowerment. Cancer, 120(20), 3219–3227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lovell, M. R., Luckett, T., Boyle, F. M., Phillips, J., Agar, M., & Davidson, P. M. (2014). Patient education, coaching, and self-management for cancer pain. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(16), 1712–1720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yun, Y. H., Sim, J. A., Jung, J. Y., Noh, D. Y., Lee, E. S., Kim, Y. W., et al. (2014). The association of self-leadership, health behaviors, and posttraumatic growth with health-related quality of life in patients with cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 23(12), 1423–1430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady, T. J., Kruger, J., Helmick, C. G., Callahan, L. F., & Boutaugh, M. L. (2003). Intervention programs for arthritis and other rheumatic diseases. Health Education and Behavior, 30(1), 44–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newman, S., Steed, L., & Mulligan, K. (2004). Self-management interventions for chronic illness. The Lancet, 364(9444), 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Cancer Institute. Dictionary of cancer terms. www.cancer.gov/dictionary. Accessed 15 December 2014.
  9. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Epstein, J., Osborne, R. H., Elsworth, G. R., Beaton, D. E., & Guillemin, F. (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation of the heiQ questionnaire: Experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 360–369.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 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.
  15. 15.
    Wahl, A. K., Langeland, E., Larsen, M. H., Robinson, H. S., Osborne, R. H., & Krogstad, A. L. (2015). Positive changes in self-management and disease severity following climate therapy in people with psoriasis. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 95(2), 317–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fillion, S., & Cook, S. (2012). Final report: Navigation Project CPAC and CIHR April 2007 to March 2012. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hawkins, M., & Osborne, R. (2007). Questionnaire translation and cultural adaptation procedure. Version 1.0. University of Melbourne, Australia, p. 9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue française. Psychologie Canadienne, 30(4), 662–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Willis, G. B. (1999, August). Cognitive interviewing: A “how to” guide. In Meeting of the American statistical association.Google Scholar
  24. 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. 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
  26. 26.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Brunet
    • 1
  • Sophie Lauzier
    • 2
    • 3
  • H. Sharon Campbell
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lise Fillion
    • 6
    • 10
  • Richard H. Osborne
    • 7
  • Elizabeth Maunsell
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
  1. 1.School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santéCentre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health SystemsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  5. 5.Propel Centre for Population Health ImpactUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  6. 6.Faculté des sciences infirmièresUniversité Laval, QuébecQuébecCanada
  7. 7.Public Health Innovation, Population Health Strategic Research CentreDeakin University, Burwood CampusMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de médecineUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  9. 9.Centre des maladies du sein Deschênes-FabiaHôpital du Saint-SacrementQuébecCanada
  10. 10.Axe OncologieCentre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations