Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2014

Testing measurement invariance of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pain behaviors score between the US general population sample and a sample of individuals with chronic pain

Auteurs: Hyewon Chung, Jiseon Kim, Karon F. Cook, Robert L. Askew, Dennis A. Revicki, Dagmar Amtmann

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

In order to test the difference between group means, the construct measured must have the same meaning for all groups under investigation. This study examined the measurement invariance of responses to the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) pain behavior (PB) item bank in two samples: the PROMIS calibration sample (Wave 1, N = 426) and a sample recruited from the American Chronic Pain Association (ACPA, N = 750). The ACPA data were collected to increase the number of participants with higher levels of pain.

Methods

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) and two item response theory (IRT)-based differential item functioning (DIF) approaches were employed to evaluate the existence of measurement invariance.

Results

MG-CFA results supported metric invariance of the PROMIS–PB, indicating unstandardized factor loadings with equal across samples. DIF analyses revealed that impact of 6 DIF items was negligible.

Conclusions

Based on the results of both MG-CFA and IRT-based DIF approaches, we recommend retaining the original parameter estimates obtained from the combined samples based on the results of MG-CFA.
vorige artikel Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30
volgende artikel Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the PROMIS pain quality item bank
Literatuur
1.
Fordyce, W. E. (1976). Behavioral methods for chronic pain and illness. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
2.
Keefe, F. J., Williams, D. A., & Smith, S. J. (2001). Assessment of pain behaviors. In D. C. Turk & R. Melzack (Eds.), Handbook of pain assessment (pp. 170–187). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
Waters, S. J., Dixon, K. E., Keefe, F. J., Ayers, S., Baum, A., McManus, C., et al. (2007). Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine (2nd ed., pp. 300–303). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Hadjistavropoulos, T., Herr, K., Turk, D. C., Fine, P. G., Dworkin, R., Helme, R., et al. (2007). An interdisciplinary expert consensus statement on assessment of pain in older persons. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 23(1 Suppl), S1–S43.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Revicki, D. A., Harding, G., Burke, L. B., Cella, D., et al. (2008). Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: An IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain, 137(2), 276–285.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Jensen, M. P. (1997). Validity of self-report and observational measures. In T. S. Jensen & J. A. Turner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th world congress on pain: Progress in pain research and management. Seattle, WA: IASP Press.
7.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25(1), 1–27.CrossRef
9.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indices for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRef
10.
French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 378–402.CrossRef
11.
King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1995). A quasi-experimental assessment of the effect of computerizing noncognitive paper-and-pencil measurements: A test of measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 643–651.CrossRef
12.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRef
13.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
14.
Stark, S., Chernshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1292–1306.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 361–388.CrossRef
16.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Choi, S. W., Cook, K. F., & Dodd, B. G. (1997). Parameter recovery for the partial credit model using MULTILOG. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 1(2), 114–142.PubMed
18.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.CrossRef
19.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Steenkamp, E. M. J., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.CrossRef
21.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
22.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 419–456.CrossRef
23.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.CrossRef
24.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. In Paper presented at the annual spring meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
26.
Woehr, D. J., Arciniega, L. M., & Lim, D. H. (2007). Examining work ethic across populations. A comparison of the multidimensional work ethic profile across three diverse cultures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(1), 154–168.CrossRef
27.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). London, England: Sage.
28.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
29.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341.CrossRef
30.
Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for “optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267–288.CrossRef
31.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.PubMedCentralPubMed
32.
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(Suppl 3), S115–S123.PubMedCrossRef
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. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation Department of National Defense.
34.
Crane, P. K., Van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L., Ocepek-Weiklson, 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.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Cook, K. F., Bombardier, C. H., Bamer, A. M., Choi, S. W., Kroenke, K., & Fann, J. R. (2011). Do somatic and cognitive symptoms of traumatic brain injury confound depression screening?. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, 818–823.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
Revicki, D. A., Chen, W., Harnam, N., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Callahan, L. F., et al. (2009). Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain, 146(1–2), 158–169.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Liu, H. H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
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.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 471–492.CrossRef
41.
Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187–213.CrossRef
42.
Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1996). Uses of item response theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 81–97.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Testing measurement invariance of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pain behaviors score between the US general population sample and a sample of individuals with chronic pain
Auteurs
Hyewon Chung
Jiseon Kim
Karon F. Cook
Robert L. Askew
Dennis A. Revicki
Dagmar Amtmann
Publicatiedatum
01-02-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0463-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2014

Significance, truth and proof of p values: reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing

  • Commentary

The Functional Living Index-Cancer is a reliable and valid instrument in Chinese cancer patients

  • Brief Communication

Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative

PROMIS® Parent Proxy Report Scales for children ages 5–7 years: an item response theory analysis of differential item functioning across age groups

Necessary and sufficient causes of participation post-stroke: practical and philosophical perspectives

Predictors of psychological well-being and stress among Jordanian menopausal women