Quality of Life Research

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 823–831 | Cite as

Measuring social difficulties in routine patient-centred assessment: a Rasch analysis of the social difficulties inventory

  • Adam B. Smith
  • Penny Wright
  • Peter Selby
  • Galina Velikova
Original Paper

Abstract

Background Social difficulties may add to the psychological burden experienced by cancer patients. Therefore identifying social difficulties in routine oncology practice may help prevent or alleviate distress. The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI) is a short questionnaire developed for assessing social difficulties in cancer patients. Although well-validated, not enough is known about the clinical meaning and utility of the instrument or whether the items can be meaningfully summed to form a summary index of “Social Distress”. Purpose To determine, using Rasch analysis, whether the SDI could be used as a summary index of social distress specifically examining three fundamental criteria: item fit, unidimensionality and item invariance. Methods The Partial Credit Model was applied to a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients (n = 609) who had completed the SDI. Results Five items were identified as misfitting (infit mean square ≥ 1.3 and standardised t-statistic ≥ 2) and excluded from the subsequent analysis. The remaining items formed a unidimensional interval scale with no additional factors identified in a principal components analysis of the residuals. No differential item functioning was observed for age, gender, diagnosis, extent of disease or social deprivation. The 16-item SDI can be summed to produce an overall index of social distress, facilitating routine identification of social difficulties. Subsequent work is needed to evaluate whether the instrument is able to identify patients with high levels of social distress requiring intervention.

Keywords

Social distress Social difficulties inventory Cancer Rasch 

References

  1. 1.
    MORI (1992). The social impact of cancer: Research study conducted for CANCER relief Macmillan Fund. London: Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M. A., Lynch, P., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87, 1099–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright, P., Smith, A., Booth, L., Winterbottom, A., Kiely, M., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2005). Psychosocial difficulties, deprivation and cancer: three questionnaire studies involving 609 cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer, 93, 622–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004). Guidance on cancer services improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. London: National Health Service.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newell, S., Girgis, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Stewart, J. (1997). Are touchscreen computer surveys acceptable to medical oncology patients? Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 15, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., Perren, T., Stead, M., Brown, J., & Selby, P. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 998–1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wright, E. P., Selby, P. J., Crawford, M., Gillibrand, A., Johnston, C., Perren, T. J., Rush, R., Smith, A., Velikova, G., Watson, K., Gould, A., & Cull, A. (2003). Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 374–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005b). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14, 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bjorner, J. B., Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Ahlner-Elmqvist, M., Arraras, J. I., Bredart, A., Fayers, P., Jordhoy, M., Sprangers, M., Watson, M., & Young, T. (2004). Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale. Quality of Life Research, 13, 1683–1697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Chang, C.-H., Bode, R. K., & Heinemann, A. W. (2003). Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Quality of Life Research, 12, 485–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, A. B., Wright, E. P., Rush, R., Stark, D., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. J. (2006). Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 817–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carstairs, V., & Morris, R. (1991). Deprivation in Scotland. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Census Dissemination Unit. (2004). Pre-calculated deprivation scores. http://www.census.ac.uk/cdu/.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafson, J.-E., & Martin-Loef, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measure, 2, 66–78.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N, Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 711–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Linacre, J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to Winsteps/Ministeps Rasch-model programs. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, R. M., & Suh, K. K. (2003). Rasch fit statistics as a test of the invariance of item parameter estimates. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 153–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Aaronson, N., Conroy, T., Cull, A., Fayers, P., Hjermstad, M., Sprangers, M., & Sullivan, M. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12, 373–385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam B. Smith
    • 1
  • Penny Wright
    • 1
  • Peter Selby
    • 1
  • Galina Velikova
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, Cancer Research UK Clinical Centre in LeedsSt James’s University HospitalLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations