Do measures of depressive symptoms function differently in people with spinal cord injury versus primary care patients: the CES-D, PHQ-9, and PROMIS®-D
- 461 Downloads
To evaluate whether items of three measures of depressive symptoms function differently in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) than in persons from a primary care sample.
This study was a retrospective analysis of responses to the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale, and the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) version 1.0 eight-item depression short form 8b (PROMIS-D). The presence of differential item function (DIF) was evaluated using ordinal logistic regression.
No items of any of the three target measures were flagged for DIF based on standard criteria. In a follow-up sensitivity analyses, the criterion was changed to make the analysis more sensitive to potential DIF. Scores were corrected for DIF flagged under this criterion. Minimal differences were found between the original scores and those corrected for DIF under the sensitivity criterion.
The three depression screening measures evaluated in this study did not perform differently in samples of individuals with SCI compared to general and community samples. Transdiagnostic symptoms did not appear to spuriously inflate depression severity estimates when administered to people with SCI.
KeywordsSpinal cord injuries Depression Diagnosis Psychometrics Rehabilitation Screening Differential item function Measurement invariance
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale
Confirmatory factor analysis
Differential item functioning
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition
Exploratory factor analysis
Glasgow Coma Scale
Graded response model
Item response theory
Major depressive disorder
Patient Health Questionnaire 9
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-Depression
Spinal cord injury
Traumatic brain injury
Research reported in this paper was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number R03HS020700. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ. The contents of this publication were developed in part under Grants from the Department of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Grant Numbers H133B080024, H133B031129, H133N110009, and H133N060033. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Research reported in this paper was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number 5U01AR052171. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Drs. Cook, Kallen, Bombarier, Choi and Amtmann and Ms. Bamer and Ms. Salem declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Elliott, T., & Harkins, S. (1991). Psychosocial concomitants of persistent pain among persons with spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(4), 9–18.Google Scholar
- 7.Fann, J. R., Bombardier, C. H., Richards, J. S., Tate, D. G., Wilson, C. S., Temkin, N., et al. (2011). Depression after spinal cord injury: Comorbidities, mental health service use, and adequacy of treatment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(3), 352–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Orlando Edelen, M. O., Thissen, D., Teresi, J. A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2006). Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach. Application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S134–S142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Teresi, J. A., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., et al. (2007). Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): Applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Quality of Life Research, 16 Suppl 1, 43–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Amtmann, D., Molton, I. R., & Jensen, M. P. (2012). Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age- or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(7), 1289–1291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fieo, R., Mukherjee, S., Dmitrieva, N. O., Fyffe, D. C., Gross, A. L., Sanders, E. R., et al. (2015). Differential item functioning due to cognitive status does not impact depressive symptom measures in four heterogeneous samples of older adults. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 30(9), 911–918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., et al. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(R)): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Bombardier, C. H., Kalpakjian, C. Z., Graves, D. E., Dyer, J. R., Tate, D. G., & Fann, J. R. (2012). Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in assessing major depressive disorder during inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(10), 1838–1845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., et al. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 71–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Johnson, K. L., & Cella, D. (2011). The PROMIS initiative: Involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in development and examples of applications in rehabilitation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Suppl), S12–S19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores (Psychometric Monograph no. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society. Retrieved from http://www.psychometrika.org/journal/online/MN17.pdf.Google Scholar
- 37.West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 39.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 41.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1996). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(s), 1–55.Google Scholar
- 42.Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 44.Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type(ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar
- 48.Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Cook, K., Cella, D., Narasimhalu, K., et al. (2007). A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 69–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Coventry, P. A., Hudson, J. L., Kontopantelis, E., Archer, J., Richards, D. A., Gilbody, S., et al. (2014). Characteristics of effective collaborative care for treatment of depression: A systematic review and meta-regression of 74 randomised controlled trials. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e108114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar