Quality of Life Research

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 571–578 | Cite as

Cultural differences in functional status measurement: Analyses of person fit according to the Rasch model

  • Jan W.H. Custers
  • Herbert Hoijtink
  • Janjaap van der Net
  • Paul J.M. Helders


For many reasons it is preferable to use established health related outcome instruments. The validity of an instrument, however, can be affected when used in another culture or language other than what it was originally developed. In this paper, the outcome on functional status measurement using a preliminary version of the Dutch translated ‘Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory’ (PEDI) was studied involving a sample of 20 non-disabled Dutch children and American peers, to see if a cross-cultural validation procedure is needed before using the instrument in the Netherlands. The Rasch model was used to analyse the Dutch data. Score profiles were not found to be compatible with the score profiles of American children. In particular, ten items were scored differently with strong indications that these were based on inter-cultural differences. Based on our study, it is argued that cross-cultural validation of the PEDI is necessary before using the instrument in the Netherlands.

Cross-cultural research Functional status Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) Questionnaires Rasch model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Touw–Otten F, Meadows K. Cross–cultural issues in out– come measurement. In: Hutchinson A, Mc Coll E, Christie M, Riccalton C (eds) Health Outcome Measures in Primary and Outpatient Care. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1996: 199–208.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27(suppl.): s217–s232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hui CH, Triandis HC. Measurement in cross–cultural psychology a review and comparison of strategies. J Cross–cultural Psych 1985; 16: 131–152.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross–cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross–cultural adaptation of health–related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46: 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt SM. Cross–cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Inf J 1993; 27: 395–400.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH, Haltiwanger JT, Andrellos PJ. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory: Development, Standardization, and Administration Manual. Boston, Mass: New England Medical Center Hospitals Inc. and PEDI Research group, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer GH, Molenaar IW. Rasch models. Foundation, Recent Developments and Applications. New York: Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA press, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982: 109 (formula 5.78).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molenaar IW, Hoijtink H. The many null distributions of person fit indices. Psychometrica 1990; 55: 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klauwer KC. The assessment of person fit. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds) Rasch Models. Foundation, Recent Developments and Applications. New York: Springer, 1995: 97–110.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coster WJ, Haley SM. Conceptualization and measurement of disablement in infants and young children. Inf Young Children 1992; 4: 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright FV, Boschen KA. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): Validation of a new functional assessment outcome instrument. Can J Rehabil 1993; 7: 41–42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nichols DS, Case–Smith J. Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Ped Phys Ther 1996; 8: 15–24.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haley SM, Coster WJ, Faas RM. A content validity study of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Ped Phys Ther 1991; 3: 177–184.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feldman AB, Haley SM, Coryell J. Concurrent and construct validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Phys Ther 1990; 70: 602–610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haley SM, Ludlow LH, Coster WJ. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory–clinical interpretation of summary scores using Rasch rating scale methodology. Phys Med & Rehabil Clin North America 1993; 4: 529–540.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersen EB. A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrica 1973; 38: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glas CAW, Verhelst ND. Tests of ®t for polytomous Rasch models. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds) Rasch Models. Foundation, Recent Developments and Applications. New York: Springer, 1995: 325–352.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molenaar IW, Hoijtink H. Person–fit and the Rasch model, with an application to knowledge of logical quantors. Applied Measurement in Education 1996; 9: 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ketelaar M. Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Functional Approach to Physical Therapy. Thesis, Utrecht University 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nijmolen P, Net J van der, Veldhoven NHMJ van, Custers JWH, Muller PS, Helders PJM. De betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van de PEDI bij kinderen met juveniele chronische artritis. Ned T Fysiother 1997; 107: 38–42.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engelbert RHH, Custers JWH, Net J van der, Graaf Y van der, Beemer FA, Helders PJM. Functional Outcome in osteogenesis imperfecta: Disability profiles using the PEDI. Ped Phys Ther 1997; 9: 18–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan W.H. Custers
    • 1
  • Herbert Hoijtink
    • 2
  • Janjaap van der Net
    • 1
  • Paul J.M. Helders
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Physical TherapyUniversity Medical CenterUtrechtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social SciencesUtrecht Universitythe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations