Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 769–780 | Cite as

Cross-cultural validity of the thyroid-specific quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measure, ThyPRO

  • Torquil WattEmail author
  • Giuseppe Barbesino
  • Jakob Bue Bjorner
  • Steen Joop Bonnema
  • Branka Bukvic
  • Russell Drummond
  • Mogens Groenvold
  • Laszlo Hegedüs
  • Valeska Kantzer
  • Kathryn E. Lasch
  • Claudio Marcocci
  • Anjali Mishra
  • Romana Netea-Maier
  • Merel Ekker
  • Ivan Paunovic
  • Terence J. Quinn
  • Åse Krogh Rasmussen
  • Audrey Russell
  • Mayilvaganan Sabaretnam
  • Johannes Smit
  • Ove Törring
  • Vladan Zivaljevic
  • Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen
Article

Abstract

Background and purpose

Thyroid diseases are common and often affect quality of life (QoL). No cross-culturally validated patient-reported outcome measuring thyroid-related QoL is available. The purpose of the present study was to test the cross-cultural validity of the newly developed thyroid-related patient-reported outcome ThyPRO, using tests for differential item functioning (DIF) according to language version.

Methods

The ThyPRO consists of 85 items summarized in 13 multi-item scales and one single item. Scales cover physical and mental symptoms, well-being and function as well as social and daily function and cosmetic concerns. Translation applied standard forward–backward methodology with subsequent cognitive interviews and reviews. Responses (N = 1,810) to the ThyPRO were collected in seven countries: UK (n = 166), The Netherlands (n = 147), Serbia (n = 150), Italy (n = 110), India (n = 148), Denmark (n = 902) and Sweden (n = 187). Translated versions were compared pairwise to the English version by examining uniform and nonuniform DIF, i.e., whether patients from different countries respond differently to a particular item, although they have identical level of the concept measured by the item. Analyses were controlled for thyroid diagnosis. DIF was investigated by ordinal logistic regression, testing for both statistical significance and magnitude (ΔR 2 > 0.02). Scale level was estimated by the sum score, after purification.

Results

For twelve of the 84 tested items, DIF was identified in more than one language. Eight of these were small, but four were indicative of possible low translatability. Twenty-one instances of DIF in single languages were identified, indicating potential problems with the particular translation. However, only seven were of a magnitude which could affect scale scores, most of which could be explained by sample differences not controlled for.

Conclusion

The ThyPRO has good cross-cultural validity with only minor cross-cultural invariance and is recommended for use in international multicenter studies.

Keywords

Thyroid diseases Quality of life Patient-reported outcome measure Cross-cultural validity Differential item functioning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation: Council for Strategic Research and Council for Independent Research and by Genzyme Corporation by an unrestricted research grant. Special thanks to Sabrina Sereni, Supriya Mathur, Kajsa Bergman, Gitte Karina Geil, Kim Æbelø, Selma Flora Watt and Laura Siim Magnussen for assistance with data entry and logistics.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any financial conflict of interest to declare. The ThyPRO was developed by TW, UFR, ÅKR, JBB, MG, SB and LH.

Supplementary material

11136_2014_798_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (104 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 104 kb)
11136_2014_798_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Watt, T., Groenvold, M., Rasmussen, A. K., Bonnema, S. J., Hegedüs, L., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2006). Quality of life in patients with benign thyroid disorders. A review. European Journal of Endocrinology, 154, 501–510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bianchi, G. P., Zaccheroni, V., Solaroli, E., Vescini, F., Cerutti, R., Zoli, M., et al. (2004). Health-related quality of life in patients with thyroid disorders. Quality of Life Research, 13(1), 45–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elberling, T. V., Rasmussen, A. K., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., Hording, M., Perrild, H., & Waldemar, G. (2004). Impaired health-related quality of life in Graves’ disease. A Prospective Study. European Journal of Endocrinology, 151(5), 549–555.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abraham-Nordling, M., Torring, O., Hamberger, B., Lundell, G., Tallstedt, L., Calissendorff, J., et al. (2005). Graves’ disease: A long-term quality-of-life follow up of patients randomized to treatment with antithyroid drugs, radioiodine, or surgery. Thyroid, 15(11), 1279–1286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McMillan, C., Bradley, C., Razvi, S., & Weaver, J. (2008). Evaluation of new measures of the impact of hypothyroidism on quality of life and symptoms: The ThyDQoL and ThySRQ. Value in Health, 11(2), 285–294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terwee, C. B., Gerding, M. N., Dekker, F. W., Prummel, M. F., & Wiersinga, W. M. (1998). Development of a disease specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with Graves’ ophthalmopathy: The GO-QOL. Br J Ophtalmol, 82(7), 773–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watt, T., Hegedüs, L., Rasmussen, A. K., Groenvold, M., Bonnema, S. J., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2007). Which domains of thyroid-related quality of life are most relevant? Patients and clinicians provide complementary perspectives. Thyroid, 17(7), 647–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watt, T., Rasmussen, A. K., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Watt, S. H., Bonnema, S. J., et al. (2008). Improving a newly developed patient-reported outcome for thyroid patients, using cognitive interviewing. Quality of Life Research, 17(7), 1009–1017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watt, T., Bjorner, J. B., Groenvold, M., Rasmussen, A. K., Bonnema, S. J., Hegedüs, L., et al. (2009). Establishing construct validity for the thyroid-specific patient reported outcome measure (ThyPRO): An initial examination. Quality of Life Research, 18(4), 483–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watt, T., Hegedüs, L., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Rasmussen, A. K., Bonnema, S. J., et al. (2010). Validity and reliability of the novel thyroid-specific quality of life questionnaire, ThyPRO. European Journal of Endocrinology, 162(1), 161–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health, 8(2), 94–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Food and Drug administration. (2009). Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4(79). doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
  15. 15.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marquis, P., Keininger, D. L., Acquadro, C., et al. (2005). Translating and evaluating questionnaires: Cultural issues for international research. In P. Fayers & R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Aaronson, N., Conroy, T., Cull, A., et al. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 373–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, M., Blaisdell, B., Kwong, J. W., & Bjorner, J. B. (2004). The short-form headache impact test (HIT-6) was psychometrically equivalent in nine languages. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(12), 1271–1278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 8, 81.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groenvold, M., & Petersen, M. A. (2005). The role and use of differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of quality of life data from clinical trials. In R. D. Hays & P. Fayers (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mellenberg, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7(2), 105–118.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group-mean differences: The concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swaminathan, A. P., & Rogers, J. H. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    French, A. W., & Miller, T. R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(3), 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 33–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. The journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware, J. E, Jr. (2003). Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: Comments on an evolving field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S43–S51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Watt, T., Hegedüs, L., Bjorner, J. B., Groenvold, M., Bonnema, S. J., Rasmussen, A. K., et al. (2012). Is thyroid autoimmunity per se a determinant of quality of life in patients with autoimmune hypothyroidism? European Thyroid Journal, 1(3), 186–192.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watt, T., Groenvold, M., Deng, N., Gandek, B., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., Rasmussen, A. K., Hegedüs, L., Bonnema, S.J., Bjorner, J.B. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the thyroid-related quality of life questionnaire ThyPRO. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (in press).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    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 (1st ed.). Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S115–S123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook, K. F., Teal, C. R., Bjorner, J. B., Cella, D., Chang, C. H., Crane, P. K., et al. (2007). IRT health outcomes data analysis project: An overview and summary. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 121–132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (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(4), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78(3), 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bjorner, J. B., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2010). Evaluating construct validity of the second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through analysis of differential item functioning and differential item effect. Scandinavian journal of public health, 38(3 Suppl), 90–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hidalgo, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and mantel-haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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
  41. 41.
    Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913–933.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schmidt, S., Debensason, D., Muhlan, H., Petersen, C., Power, M., Simeoni, M. C., et al. (2006). The DISABKIDS generic quality of life instrument showed cross-cultural validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(6), 587–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schmidt, S., Muhlan, H., & Power, M. (2006). The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: Psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. European journal of public health, 16(4), 420–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenzel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. NJ: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and mantel-haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15(3), 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    French, B. F., & Maller, S. J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    SAS Institute Inc. (2011). SAS/STAT 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Teresi, J. A., Ramirez, M., Jones, R. N., Choi, S., & Crane, P. K. (2012). Modifying measures based on differential item functioning (DIF) impact analyses. Journal of Aging Health, 24(6), 1044–1076.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watt, T., Groenvold, M., Hegedüs, L., Bonnema, S. J., Rasmussen, A. K., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., et al. (2014). Few items in the thyroid-related quality of life instrument ThyPRO exhibited differential item functioning. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 327–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Graf, H., Fast, S., Pacini, F., Pinchera, A., Leung, A., Vaisman, M., et al. (2011). Modified-release recombinant human TSH (MRrhTSH) augments the effect of 131I therapy in benign multinodular goiter: Results from a multicenter international, randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 96(5), 1368–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torquil Watt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giuseppe Barbesino
    • 2
  • Jakob Bue Bjorner
    • 3
  • Steen Joop Bonnema
    • 4
  • Branka Bukvic
    • 5
  • Russell Drummond
    • 6
  • Mogens Groenvold
    • 7
  • Laszlo Hegedüs
    • 4
  • Valeska Kantzer
    • 8
  • Kathryn E. Lasch
    • 9
  • Claudio Marcocci
    • 10
  • Anjali Mishra
    • 11
  • Romana Netea-Maier
    • 12
  • Merel Ekker
    • 12
  • Ivan Paunovic
    • 5
  • Terence J. Quinn
    • 6
  • Åse Krogh Rasmussen
    • 1
  • Audrey Russell
    • 13
  • Mayilvaganan Sabaretnam
    • 14
  • Johannes Smit
    • 12
  • Ove Törring
    • 15
  • Vladan Zivaljevic
    • 5
  • Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EndocrinologyCopenhagen University Hospital RigshospitaletCopenhagen ØDenmark
  2. 2.Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.QualityMetricLincolnUSA
  4. 4.Department of Endocrinology and MetabolismOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  5. 5.Clinical Centre of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia
  6. 6.Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK
  7. 7.Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital and Department of Health Service Research, University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  8. 8.Health Research Associates Inc.Mountlake TerraceUSA
  9. 9.Pharmerit InternationalBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.University Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, and Endocrine Unit 2, University Hospital of PisaPisaItaly
  11. 11.Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical SciencesLucknowIndia
  12. 12.Department of Internal MedicineRadboud University Medical Center NijmegenNijmegenNetherlands
  13. 13.University College CorkCorkIreland
  14. 14.Christian Medical CollegeVelloreIndia
  15. 15.Institution for Clinical Science and EducationKarolinska Institutet SödersjukhusetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations