Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1463–1472 | Cite as

Minimal impact of response shift for SF-12 mental and physical health status in homeless and vulnerably housed individuals: an item-level multi-group analysis

  • Anne M. Gadermann
  • Richard Sawatzky
  • Anita Palepu
  • Anita M. Hubley
  • Bruno D. Zumbo
  • Tim Aubry
  • Susan Farrell
  • Stephen W. Hwang
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine whether homeless or vulnerably housed individuals experienced response shift over a 12-month time period in their self-reported physical and mental health status.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Health and Housing in Transition study, a longitudinal multi-site cohort study in Canada (N = 1190 at baseline). Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) and methods for response shift detection at the item level, based on the approach by Oort, were used to test for reconceptualization, reprioritization, and recalibration response shift on the SF-12 in four groups of individuals who were homeless (n = 170), housed (n = 437), or who reported a change in their housing status [from homeless to housed (n = 285) or housed to homeless (n = 73)] over a 12-month time period. Mean and variance adjusted weighted-least squares estimation was used to accommodate the ordinal and binary distributions of the SF-12 items.

Results

Using MG-CFA, a strict invariance model showed that the measurement model was equivalent for the four groups at baseline. Although we found small but statistically significant response shift for several measurement model parameters, the impact on the predicted average mental and physical health scores within each of the groups was small.

Conclusions

Response shift does not appear to be a significant concern when using the SF-12 to obtain change scores over a 12-month period in this population.

Keywords

Homeless persons Vulnerable populations Response shift Health Mental health SF-12 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by an Operating Grant (MOP-86765) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Gadermann also acknowledges support from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We would like to acknowledge the following individuals from our community partner organizations: Laura Cowan, Liz Evans, Sarah Evans, Stephanie Gee, Clare Haskel, Erika Khandor, and Wendy Muckle. The authors also thank the study coordinators and interviewers in each of the three cities as well as the shelter, drop-in, municipal and provincial staff for their assistance with participant recruitment and follow-up.

Funding

This project was supported by an Operating Grant (MOP-86765) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Gadermann also acknowledges support from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study 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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hwang, S. W., Aubry, T., Palepu, A., Farrell, S., Nisenbaum, R., Hubley, A. M., et al. (2011). The health and housing in transition study: A longitudinal study of the health of homeless and vulnerably housed adults in three Canadian cities. International Journal of Public Health, 56, 609–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laird, G. (2007). Shelter: Homelessness in a growth economy: Canada’s 21st century paradox. A report for the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, Calgary.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Research Alliance for Canadian Homelessness, Housing, and Health (REACH3) (2010). Housing vulnerability and health: Canada’s hidden emergency. http://www.pshp.ca/documents/resources/2010-REACH-Housing-Vulnerability.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2016.
  4. 4.
    Breakey, W. R., Fischer, P. J., Kramer, M., Nestadt, G., Romanoski, A. J., Ross, A., et al. (1989). Health and mental health problems of homeless men and women in Baltimore. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 1352–1357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischer, P. J., & Breakey, W. R. (1991). The epidemiology of alcohol, drug, and mental disorders among homeless persons. American Psychologist, 46, 1115–1128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankish, C. J., Hwang, S. W., & Quantz, D. (2005). Homelessness and health in Canada: Research lessons and priorities. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96(Suppl 2), S23–S29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang, S. W. (2001). Homelessness and health. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164, 229–233.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwang, S. W. (2000). Mortality among men using homeless shelters in Toronto, Ontario. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2152–2157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang, S. W., Wilkins, R., Tjepkema, M., O’Campo, P. J., & Dunn, J. R. (2009). Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. British Medical Journal, 339, b4036.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz, C. E., Bode, R., Repucci, N., Becker, J., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Fayers, P. M. (2006). The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: A meta-analysis of response shift. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1533–1550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bray, J. H., Maxwell, S. E., & Howard, G. S. (1984). Methods of analysis with response-shift bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Ganann, R., Krishnaratne, S., Ciliska, D., Kouyoumdjian, F., & Hwang, S. W. (2011). Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: A rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health, 11, 638–651.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patterson, M., Moniruzzaman, A., Palepu, A., Zabkiewicz, D., Frankish, C. J., Krausz, M., et al. (2013). Housing first improves subjective quality of life among homeless adults with mental illness: 12-month findings from a randomized controlled trial in Vancouver, British Columbia. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48, 1245–1259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogden, J., & Lo, J. (2012). How meaningful are data from Likert scales? An evaluation of how ratings are made and the role of the response shift in the socially disadvantaged. Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 350–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salyers, M. P., Bosworth, H. B., Swanson, J. W., Lamb-Pagone, J., & Osher, F. C. (2000). Reliability and validity of the SF-12 health survey among people with severe mental illness. Medical Care, 38, 1141–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larson, C. O. (2002). Use of the SF-12 instrument for measuring the health of homeless persons. Health Services Research, 37, 733–750.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsemberis, S., McHugo, G., Williams, V., Hanrahan, P., & Stefancic, A. (2007). Measuring homelessness and residential stability: The residential time-line follow-back inventory. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lix, L. M., Chan, E. K. H., Sawatzky, R., Sajobi, T. T., Liu, J., Hopman, W., et al. (2016). Response shift and disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Quality of Life Research, 25, 1751–1760.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oort, F. J. (2005). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Quality of Life Research, 14, 587–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verdam, M. G., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. A. (2016). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in discrete variables: An application to the items of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 25, 1361–1383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2013). MPlus (version 7). Los Angeles, CA: Statmodel.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    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, 4–69. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10), 3527B.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing MI. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 235–255.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hwang, S. W., Ueng, J. J., Chiu, S., Kiss, A., Tolomiczenko, G., Cowan, L., et al. (2010). Universal health insurance and health care access for homeless persons. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1454–1461.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hubley, A. M., Russell, L. B., Palepu, A., & Hwang, S. W. (2014). Subjective quality of life among individuals who are homeless: A review of current knowledge. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 115, 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R., & Sprangers, M. A. (2005). An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery. Quality of Life Research, 14, 599–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Visser, M. R., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. A. (2005). Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: A convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research, 14, 629–639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310, 170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Gadermann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard Sawatzky
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anita Palepu
    • 1
  • Anita M. Hubley
    • 4
  • Bruno D. Zumbo
    • 4
  • Tim Aubry
    • 5
  • Susan Farrell
    • 5
  • Stephen W. Hwang
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome SciencesProvidence Health Care Research InstituteVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Human Early Learning Partnership, School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.School of NursingTrinity Western UniversityLangleyCanada
  4. 4.Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology Program, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.School of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  6. 6.Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge InstituteSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations