Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Item Discrimination Power of WHOQOL-BREF from an Item Response Model Perspectives

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality of life (QOL) has become an important component of health. By using the methodology of psychometric theory, we examine the item properties of the WHOQOL-BRIEF. Samejima’s graded response model with natural metrics of the logistic response function was fitted. The results showed items with negative natures were less discriminating. Items written in a specific way were more suitable to assess certain subgroups. The national items showed variation in discriminatory power. Questions measuring objective and specific issues performed worse than items assessing general aspects of the QOL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185–198. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00553.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S. G., Muraki, E., Wilson, D. T., & Wood, R. (2003). TESTFACT 4.0 [Computer software and manual]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

  • Bonomi, A. E., Patrick, D. L., Bushnell, D. M., & Martin, M. (2000). Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 1–12. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00123-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G. (1992). A conceptual analysis of differential item functioning in terms of a multidimensional item response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 129–147. doi:10.1177/014662169201600203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, N. S., & Moss, P. A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGirolamo, G., Rucci, P., Scocco, P., Becchi, A., Coppa, F., D’Addario, A., et al. (2000). Quality of life assessment: Validation of the Italian version of the WHOQOL-Brief. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 9, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drasgow, F., & Lissak, R. I. (1983). Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 363–373. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, C. (1988). NOHARM: An IBM PC computer program for fitting both unidimensional and multidimensional normal ogive models of latent trait theory. Armidale, Australia: The University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herche, J., & Engelland, B. (1996). Reversed-polarity items and scale unidimensionality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 366–374. doi:10.1177/0092070396244007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W. (1990). On the sampling theory foundations of item response theory models. Psychometrika, 55, 577–601. doi:10.1007/BF02294609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H., Cohen, A. S., & Park, T. H. (1995). Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 261–276. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1995.tb00466.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson, E. A., Desrochers, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Translating and adapting measurement instruments for cross-cultural research: A guide for practitioners. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 35, 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores (with contributions by A. Birnbaum). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1967). Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometric monographs, no. 15.

  • McDonald, R. P. (1997). Normal-ogive multidimensional model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, S. K., Kim, K. I., Lee, C. I., Jung, Y. C., Suh, S. Y., & Kim, D. K. (2002). Development of the Korean versions of WHO quality of life scale and WHOQOL-BREF. Quality of Life Research, 11, 593–600. doi:10.1023/A:1016351406336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1996). PARSCALE: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Version 3. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norholm, V., & Bech, P. (2001). The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) questionnaire: Danish validation study. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 229–235. doi:10.1080/080394801681019075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskam, E. E. (1985). Current issues in item response theory. In E. E. Roskam (Ed.), Measurement and personality assessment (pp. 3–19). Amsteerdam: North Holland.

  • Samejima, F. (1967). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 34(Supplement), 100–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skevington, S. M., Bradshawa, J., & Saxenab, S. (1999). Selecting national items for the WHOQOL: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 473–487. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00355-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617. doi:10.1007/BF02294821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (1993). WHOQOL study protocol. Geneva: WHO (MNH/PSF/93.9).

  • World Health Organization. (1994). WHOQOL protocol for new centers. Geneva: WHO (MNH/PSF/94.4).

  • Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Thinking about item response theory from a logistic regression perspective: A focus on polytomous models. In S. S. Sawilowsky (Ed.), Real data analysis. AERA, Educational Statisicians Book Series (pp. 241–269). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

  • Yao, G., Chung, C. W., Yu, C. F., & Wang, J. D. (2002). Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 101, 342–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of differential item functioning (DIF) analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D., Pope, G. A., Watson, J. E., & Hubley, A. M. (1997). An empirical test of Roskam's conjecture about the interpretation of an ICC parameter in personality inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 963–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health and National Health Research Institute in Taiwan, for providing the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Statistics, National Taipei University, 67, Section 3, Ming-Sheng East Road, Taipei, 10433, Taiwan, ROC

    Ting Hsiang Lin

  2. National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Grace Yao

Authors
  1. Ting Hsiang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ting Hsiang Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, T.H., Yao, G. Evaluating Item Discrimination Power of WHOQOL-BREF from an Item Response Model Perspectives. Soc Indic Res 91, 141–153 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9273-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9273-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation