Abstracts
Purpose
The Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQOL-54) is a specific multiple sclerosis (MS) health-related quality of life inventory consisting of 52 items organized into 12 subscales plus two single items. No study was found in literature assessing its measurement invariance across language versions. We investigated whether MSQOL-54 items provide unbiased measurements of underlying constructs across Italian and English versions.
Methods
Three constrained levels of measurement invariance were evaluated: configural invariance where equivalent numbers of factors/factor patterns were required; metric invariance where equivalent factor loadings were required; and scalar invariance where equivalent item intercepts between groups were required. Comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) fit indices and their changes between nested models were used to assess tenability of invariance constraints.
Results
Overall, the dataset included 3669 MS patients: 1605 (44%) Italian, mean age 41 years, 62% women, 69% with mild level of disability; 2064 (56%) English-speaking (840 [41%] from North America, 797 [39%] from Australasia, 427 [20%] from UK and Ireland), mean age 46 years, 83% women, 54% with mild level of disability. The configural invariance model showed acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.904, SRMR = 0.046); imposing loadings and intercepts equality constraints produced negligible worsening of fit (ΔRMSEA < 0.001, ΔCFI = − 0.002, ΔSRMR = 0.002 for metric invariance; ΔRMSEA = 0.003, ΔCFI = − 0.013, ΔSRMR = 0.003 for scalar invariance).
Conclusions
These findings support measurement invariance of the MSQOL-54 across the two language versions, suggesting that the questionnaire has the same meaning and the same measurement paramaters in the Italian and English versions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Compston, A., McDonald, I., Noseworthy, J., Lassmann, H., Miller, D., Smith, K., et al. (2006). McAlpine’s multiple sclerosis (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
GBD 2016 Multiple Sclerosis Collaborators. (2019). Global, regional, and national burden of multiple sclerosis 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurology,18(3), 269–285.
Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports,10, 397–406.
Mitchell, A. J., Benito-León, J., González, J. M., & Rivera-Navarro, J. (2005). Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. Lancet Neurology,4, 556–566.
Rothwell, P. M., McDowell, Z., Wong, C. K., & Dorman, P. J. (1997). Doctors and patients don’t agree: cross sectional study of patients and doctors perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ,314, 1580–1583.
Solari, A. (2005). Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Quality of Life Outcomes,3, 16.
Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality Life Research,4, 187–206.
Cella, D. F., Dineen, M. A., Arnason, B., Heeley, E., Rostgaard, I., Løvendahl, B., et al. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology,47, 129–139.
Solari, A., Filippini, G., Mendozzi, L., Ghezzi, A., Cifani, S., Barbieri, E., et al. (1999). Validation of Italian multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 questionnaire. Journal Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry,67, 158–162.
Acquadro, C., Lafortune, L., & Mear, I. (2003). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: translation in French Canadian of the MSQoL-54. Health Quality Life Outcomes,1, 70.
Yamamoto, T., Ogata, K., Katagishi, M., Shimizu, H., Ogawa, M., Yamamura, T., et al. (2004). Validation of the Japanese-translated version Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 instrument. Rinsho Shinkeigaku,44, 417–421.
Idiman, E., Uzunel, F., Ozakbas, S., Yozbatiran, N., Oguz, M., Callioglu, B., et al. (2006). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire (MSQOL-54) in a Turkish multiple sclerosis sample. Journal Neurological Sciences,240, 77–80.
Pekmezovic, T., Kisic Tepavcevic, D., Kostic, J., & Drulovic, J. (2007). Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQOL-54 in Serbian multiple sclerosis patients sample. Quality Life Research,16, 1383–1387.
Füvesi, J., Bencsik, K., Benedek, K., Mátyás, K., Mészáros, E., Rajda, C., et al. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ‘Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Instrument’ in Hungarian. Multiple Sclerosis,14, 391–398.
El Alaoui Taoussi, K., Ait Ben Haddou, E., Benomar, A., Abouqal, R., & Yahyaoui, M. (2012). Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: Arabic language translation and transcultural adaptation of MSQOL-54. Revue Neurologique,168, 444–449.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review,41, 71–90.
Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal Cross-Cultural Psychology,49(5), 713–734.
Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & Suh, Y. (2010). Validity, invariance and responsiveness of a self-report measure of functional limitations and disability in multiple sclerosis. Disability Rehabilitation,32, 1260–1271.
Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & Mullen, S. (2011). Longitudinal measurement invariance of the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12. Journal Neurological Sciences,305, 75–79.
Motl, R. W., Mullen, S., & McAuley, E. (2012). Multi-group measurement invariance of the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12? Neurological Research,34(2), 149–152.
Cox, S. D., & Pakenham, K. I. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance testing of the Young Carer of Parents Inventory (YCOPI). Rehabilitation Psychology,59, 439–452.
Chung, H., Kim, J., Askew, R. L., Jones, S. M., Cook, K. F., & Amtmann, D. (2015). Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples. Quality Life Research,24, 1829–1834.
Chung, H., Kim, J., Park, R., Bamer, A. M., Bocell, F. D., & Amtmann, D. (2016). Testing the measurement invariance of the University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale short form across four diagnostic subgroups. Quality Life Research,25, 2559–2564.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin,105(3), 456.
Santos, D., Abad, F. J., Miret, M., Chatterji, S., Olaya, B., Zawisza, K., et al. (2017). Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries. Quality of Life Research,27, 1015–1025.
Geyh, S., Fellinghauer, B. A., Kirchberger, I., & Post, M. W. (2010). Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes,8, 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-94.
Hadgkiss, E. J., Jelinek, G. A., Weiland, T. T., Pereira, N. G., Marck, C. H., & van derMeer, D. M. (2013). Methodology of an international study of people with multiple sclerosis recruited through web 2.0 platforms: demographics, lifestyle, and disease characteristics. Neurology Research International,2013, 580–596.
Jelinek, G. A., De Livera, A. M., Marck, C. H., Brown, C. R., Neate, S. L., Keryn, L., et al. (2016). Lifestyle, medication and socio-demographic determinants of mental and physical health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurology,16, 235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0763-4.
Bassi, M., Falautano, M., Cilia, S., Goretti, B., Grobberio, M., Pattini, M., et al. (2016). Illness perception and well-being among persons with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers. Journal Clinical Psychology Medical Settings,23, 33–52.
Bassi, M., Falautano, M., Cilia, S., Goretti, B., Grobberio, M., Pattini, M., et al. (2014). The coexistence of well- and ill-being in persons with multiple sclerosis, their caregivers and health professionals. Journal Neurological Sciences,337, 67–73.
Rosato, R., Testa, S., Bertolotto, A., Confalonieri, P., Patti, F., Lugaresi, A., et al. (2016). Development of a short version of MSQOL-54 using factor analysis and item response theory. PLoS ONE,11, e0153466.
Rosato, R., Testa, S., Bertolotto, A., Scavelli, F., Giovannetti, A. M., Confalonieri, P., et al. (2018). Prospective validation of the abbreviated, electronic version of the MSQOL-54. Multiple Sclerosis,25(6), 856–866.
Solari, A., Motta, A., Mendozzi, L., Pucci, E., Forni, M., Mancardi, G., et al. (2004). Computer-aided retraining of memory and attention in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Journal Neurological Sciences,222, 99–104.
Massacesi, L., Tramacere, I., Amoroso, S., Battaglia, M. A., Benedetti, M. D., et al. (2014). Azathioprine versus beta interferons for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial. PLoS ONE,9, e113371.
Polman, C., Reingold, S., Edan, G., Filippi, M., Hartung, H., Kappos, L., et al. (2005). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Annals Neurology,58, 840–846.
Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., et al. (2011). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals Neurology,69, 292–302.
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology,33, 1444–1452.
Hohol, M. J., Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: a simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology,45, 251–255.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.
Giordano, A., Pucci, E., Naldi, P., Mendozzi, L., Milanese, C., Tronci, F., et al. (2009). Responsiveness of patient- reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study. Journal Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry,80, 1023–1028.
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(3), 479–515.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76–99)., Concepts, issues, and applications London: Sage.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,14(3), 464–504.
Hays, R. D., Revicki, D., & Coyne, K. S. (2005). Application of structural equation modeling to health outcomes research. Evaluation Health Professions,28, 295–309.
van Bebber, J., Flens, G., Wigman, J. T. W., de Beurs, E., Sytema, S., Wunderink, L., et al. (2018). Application of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) item parameters for anxiety and depression in the Netherlands. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research,27(4), e1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1744.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: software for coarsened exact matching. Journal Statistical Software. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v030.i09.
Lix, L. M., Osman, B. A., Adachi, J. D., Towheed, T., Hopman, W., Davison, K. S., et al. (2012). Measurement equivalence of the SF-36 in the canadian multicentre osteoporosis study. Health Quality of Life Outcomes,10, 29.
Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus user’s guide. 6th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: a comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling,21(2), 167–180.
Marrie, R. A., Cutter, G., Tyry, T., Hadjimichael, O., Campagnolo, D., et al. (2005). Changes in the ascertainment of multiple sclerosis. Neurology,65, 1066–1070.
Marrie, R.A., Cutter, G., Tyry, T., Vollmer, T., Campagnolo, D. (2006). Does multiple sclerosis-associated disability differ between races? Neurology, 66(8), 1235–1240.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the PwMS who participated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare 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.
Informed consent
Patients gave written informed consent to being included in the original projects. Additional consent was not required for this secondary analysis, for which patients’ privacy and anonymity was guaranteed.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giordano, A., Testa, S., Bassi, M. et al. Assessing measurement invariance of MSQOL-54 across Italian and English versions. Qual Life Res 29, 783–791 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02352-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02352-0