Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 2431–2441 | Cite as

Cross-national health comparisons using the Rasch model: findings from the 2012 US Health and Retirement Study and the 2012 Mexican Health and Aging Study

  • Ickpyo HongEmail author
  • Timothy A. Reistetter
  • Carlos Díaz-Venegas
  • Alejandra Michaels-Obregon
  • Rebeca Wong
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Cross-national comparisons of patterns of population aging have emerged as comparable national micro-data have become available. This study creates a metric using Rasch analysis and determines the health of American and Mexican older adult populations.

Methods

Secondary data analysis using representative samples aged 50 and older from 2012 U.S. Health and Retirement Study (n = 20,554); 2012 Mexican Health and Aging Study (n = 14,448). We developed a function measurement scale using Rasch analysis of 22 daily tasks and physical function questions. We tested psychometrics of the scale including factor analysis, fit statistics, internal consistency, and item difficulty. We investigated differences in function using multiple linear regression controlling for demographics. Lastly, we conducted subgroup analyses for chronic conditions.

Results

The created common metric demonstrated a unidimensional structure with good item fit, an acceptable precision (person reliability = 0.78), and an item difficulty hierarchy. The American adults appeared less functional than adults in Mexico (β = − 0.26, p < 0.0001) and across two chronic conditions (arthritis, β = − 0.36; lung problems, β = − 0.62; all p < 0.05). However, American adults with stroke were more functional than Mexican adults (β = 0.46, p = 0.047).

Conclusions

The Rasch model indicates that Mexican adults were more functional than Americans at the population level and across two chronic conditions (arthritis and lung problems). Future studies would need to elucidate other factors affecting the function differences between the two countries.

Keywords

Cross-cultural comparison Rasch model Disability Health Outcome measure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740) and the Social Security Administration. The Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS) is partly sponsored by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging (Grant Number NIH R01AG018016) and the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) in Mexico. Data files and documentation for the HRS and MHAS are public use and available at https://hrs.isr.umich.edu and http://www.MHASweb.org. We thank Dr. Sarah Toombs Smith at the University of Texas Medical Branch for copyediting the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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. This study was exempted by the Institutional review boards (IRB) of the University of Texas Medical Branch because the research is a study of an existing data sets, the US Health and Retirement Study and the Mexican Health and Aging Study which are publicly available. The study data set is de-identified, such that subjects cannot be identified directly, or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_1878_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (102 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 101 KB)
11136_2018_1878_MOESM2_ESM.doc (88 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 88 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Sonnega, A., Faul, J. D., Ofstedal, M. B., Langa, K. M., Phillips, J. W., & Weir, D. R. (2014). Cohort profile: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 576–585.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu067.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wong, R., Michaels-Obregon, A., & Palloni, A. (2015). Cohort profile: The Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(2), e2.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu263.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Minicuci, N., Naidoo, N., Chatterji, S., & Kowal, P. (2016). Data resource profile: Cross-national and cross-study sociodemographic and health-related harmonized domains from SAGE plus ELSA, HRS and SHARE (SAGE+, Wave 1). International Journal of Epidemiology, 45(5), 1403-1403j.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shih, R. A., Jinkook, L., & Lopamudra, D. (2012). Harmonization of cross-national studies of aging to the Health and Retirement Study: Cognition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buz, J., & Cortés-Rodríguez, M. (2016). Measurement of the severity of disability in community-dwelling adults and older adults: Interval-level measures for accurate comparisons in large survey data sets. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011842.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cieza, A., Oberhauser, C., Bickenbach, J., et al. (2015). The English are healthier than the Americans really? International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(1), 229–238.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MHAS Mexican Health and Aging Study. (2012). Data files and documentation (public use): Mexican Health and Aging Study. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from https://www.MHASweb.org.
  8. 8.
    Díaz-Venegas, C., Reistetter, T. A., & Wong, R. (2016). Differences in the progression of disability: A US–Mexico comparison. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerst-Emerson, K., Wong, R., Michaels-Obregon, A., & Palloni, A. (2015). Cross-national differences in disability among elders: Transitions in disability in Mexico and the United States. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(5), 759–768.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diaz-Venegas, C., Reistetter, T. A., Wang, C. Y., & Wong, R. (2016). The progression of disability among older adults in Mexico. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(20), 2016–2027.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1111435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan, K. S., Kasper, J. D., Brandt, J., & Pezzin, L. E. (2012). Measurement equivalence in ADL and IADL difficulty across international surveys of aging: Findings from the HRS, SHARE, and ELSA. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(1), 121–132.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juster, F. T., & Suzman, R. (1995). An overview of the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of Human Resources.  https://doi.org/10.2307/146277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chien, S., Campbell, N., Hayden, O., et al. (2013). RAND HRS data documentation. Version M. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu/.
  14. 14.
    Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. JAMA, 311(8), 806–814.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.732.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radloff, L. S. (1997). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    SAS for windows. (2017). [Computer program]. Version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., 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), 22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55(2), 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User's Guide (7th edn). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafson, J., & Martin-Lof, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montanari, G. E., Ranalli, M. G., & Eusebi, P. (2011). Latent variable modeling of disability in people aged 65 or more. Statistical Methods & Applications, 20(1), 49–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-010-0148-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linacre, J. M. (2017). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS® 3.91.2. [Computer program].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis, 1 ed. Chicago: Mesa Press, Pluribus Pr.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fisher, W. P. Jr. (1992). Reliability, separation, strata statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6(3), 238.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wright, B. D. (1993). Logits? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(2), 288.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Durazo-Arvizu, R. A., Barquera, S., Lazo-Elizondo, M., Franco, M., & Cooper, R. S. (2008). Cardiovascular disease surveillance in Mexicans and Mexican Americans: A tale of two countries. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 23(2), 119–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Payne, C. F. (2018). Aging in the Americas: Disability-free life expectancy among adults aged 65 and older in the United States, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(2), 337–348.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 33.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational TherapyUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  3. 3.Sealy Center on AgingUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations