Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 171–175 | Cite as

Exploring measurement invariance by gender in the profile of mood states depression subscale among cancer survivors

Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

The Profile of Mood States-Short Form (POMS-SF) is a well-validated tool commonly used in medical/clinical research. Less attention has been paid to the measurement invariance of the POMS—the degree to which the structure and items behave similarly for different groups (e.g., women and men). This study investigated the measurement invariance of the POMS Depression subscale across gender groups in a sample of cancer survivors.

Methods

The POMS Depression subscale has 8 items (Unhappy, Sad, Blue, Hopeless, Discouraged, Miserable, Helpless, and Worthless). Invariance was measured using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. This study used data from American Cancer Society Studies of Cancer Survivors-II, a population-based survey of adult cancer survivors (n = 9170).

Results

We found factor structures and factor loadings were invariant for gender groups, but moderate differential item functioning (DIF) in the question containing the word blue.

Conclusion

With regard to cancer survivors’ gender, we found the Depression subscale of the POMS-SF had configural invariance, and partial metric and scalar invariance. This suggests that results should be interpreted with caution, especially when gender is considered important. More broadly, our finding suggests that questions with the word blue may introduce DIF into other measures of depressive mood. More research is needed to replicate these findings in other samples and with other instruments.

Keywords

Depression Patient-reported outcomes Measurement invariance Differential item functioning 

Supplementary material

11136_2016_1452_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)
11136_2016_1452_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)
11136_2016_1452_MOESM3_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Cautionary statement. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349.11547.
  2. 2.
    Anderson, B. L., DeRubeis, R. J., Berman, B. S., Gruman, J., Champion, V. L., Massie, M. J., et al. (2014). Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaption. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(15), 1605–1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunet, J., Sabiston, C. M., Chaiton, M., Low, N. C., Contrera, G., Barnett, T. A., et al. (2014). Measurement invariance of the depressive symptoms scale during adolescence. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 95–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cella, D., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Health-related quality of life measurement in oncology. American Psychologist, 70(2), 175–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curran, S. L., Andrykowski, M. A., & Studts, J. L. (1995). Short form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS-SF): Psychometric information. Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Dealing with nonnormality and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Chapter in a second course in structural equation modeling. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant, B. F., & Weissman, M. M. (2007). Gender and the prevalence of psychiatric disorders. In W. E. Narrow, M. B. First, P. J. Sirovatka, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), Age and gender considerations in psychiatric diagnosis: A research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 31–46). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hennessy, C. H., Moriarty, D. G., Zack, M. M., Scherr, P. A., & Brackbill, R. (1994). Measuring health-related quality of life for public health surveillance. Public Health Reports, 109, 665–672.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isometsã, E. T., Heikkinen, M., Marttunen, M., Henriksson, M., Aro, H., Kuoppasalmi, K., et al. (1997). Mental disorders in young and middle aged men who commit suicide. The British Medical Journal, 310(6991), 1366–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jodoin, M., & Girl, M. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial measurement invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    NcNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1992). Revised manual for the 16 Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plecki, M. L., Elfers, A. M., & Nakamura, Y. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education program improvement and accountability: An illustrative case of the role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raju, N. S., Oshima, T. C., van Der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). An IRT-based internal measure of test bias with applications for differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shacham, S. (1983). A shortened version of the Profile of Mood States. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 305–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shear, K., Halmi, K. A., Widiger, T. A., & Boyce, C. (2007). Sociocultural factors and gender. In W. E. Narrow, M. B. First, P. J. Sirovatka, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), Age and gender considerations in psychiatric diagnosis: A research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 65–79). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, T., Stein, K. D., Mehta, C. C., Kaw, C., Kepner, J. L., Buskirk, T., et al. (2007). The rationale, design, and implementation of the American Cancer Society’s studies of cancer survivors. Cancer, 1(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Mental health findings, NSDUH Series H-49, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4887. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Program, Bagwell College of EducationKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.Intramural Research Department, Behavioral Research CenterAmerican Cancer SocietyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations