nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015

Development of a cross-cultural item bank for measuring quality of life related to mental health in multiple sclerosis patients

verfasst von: Pierre Michel, Pascal Auquier, Karine Baumstarck, Jean Pelletier, Anderson Loundou, Badih Ghattas, Laurent Boyer

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Objective

Quality of life (QoL) measurements are considered important outcome measures both for research on multiple sclerosis (MS) and in clinical practice. Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) can improve the precision of measurements made using QoL instruments while reducing the burden of testing on patients. Moreover, a cross-cultural approach is also necessary to guarantee the wide applicability of CAT. The aim of this preliminary study was to develop a calibrated item bank that is available in multiple languages and measures QoL related to mental health by combining one generic (SF-36) and one disease-specific questionnaire (MusiQoL).

Methods

Patients with MS were enrolled in this international, multicenter, cross-sectional study. The psychometric properties of the item bank were based on classical test and item response theories and approaches, including the evaluation of unidimensionality, item response theory model fitting, and analyses of differential item functioning (DIF). Convergent and discriminant validities of the item bank were examined according to socio-demographic, clinical, and QoL features.

Results

A total of 1992 patients with MS and from 15 countries were enrolled in this study to calibrate the 22-item bank developed in this study. The strict monotonicity of the Cronbach’s alpha curve, the high eigenvalue ratio estimator (5.50), and the adequate CFA model fit (RMSEA = 0.07 and CFI = 0.95) indicated that a strong assumption of unidimensionality was warranted. The infit mean square statistic ranged from 0.76 to 1.27, indicating a satisfactory item fit. DIF analyses revealed no item biases across geographical areas, confirming the cross-cultural equivalence of the item bank. External validity testing revealed that the item bank scores correlated significantly with QoL scores but also showed discriminant validity for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics.

Conclusion

This work demonstrated satisfactory psychometric characteristics for a QoL item bank for MS in multiple languages. This work may offer a common measure for the assessment of QoL in different cultural contexts and for international studies conducted on MS.

Vorheriger Artikel Reliability of the autoimmune bullous disease quality of life (ABQOL) questionnaire in the USA

Nächster Artikel Psychometric properties of the Chalder Fatigue Scale revisited: an exploratory structural equation modeling approach

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Baumstarck, K., Boyer, L., Boucekine, M., Michel, P., Pelletier, J., & Auquier, P. (2013). Measuring the quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis in clinical practice: A necessary challenge. Multiple Sclerosis International, 2013, 524894. doi:10.1155/2013/524894.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Noble, J. G., Osborne, L. A., Jones, K. H., Middleton, R. M., & Ford, D. V. (2012). Commentary on “disability outcome measures in multiple sclerosis clinical trials”. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 18, 1718–1720. doi:10.1177/1352458512457847.PubMedCrossRef

Mitchell, A. J., Benito-León, J., González, J.-M. 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. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70166-6.PubMedCrossRef

Solari, A. (2005). Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 16. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-16.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., & Institute, N. E. M. C. H. H. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. New England Medical Center: The Health Institute.

Patrick, D. L., & Deyo, R. A. (1989). Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care, 27, S217–S232.PubMedCrossRef

Simeoni, M. C., Auquier, P., Fernandez, O., Flachenecker, P., Stecchi, S., Constantinescu, C. S., et al. (2008). Validation of the multiple sclerosis international quality of life questionnaire. Multiple Sclerosis, 14, 219–230. doi:10.1177/1352458507080733.PubMedCrossRef

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 of Life Research, 4, 187–206.PubMedCrossRef

Leong, K. P., Yeak, S. C. L., Saurajen, A. S. M., Mok, P. K. H., Earnest, A., Siow, J. K., et al. (2005). Why generic and disease-specific quality-of-life instruments should be used together for the evaluation of patients with persistent allergic rhinitis. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 35, 288–298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02201.x.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Riemsma, R. P., Forbes, C. A., Glanville, J. M., Eastwood, A. J., & Kleijnen, J. (2001). General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: Learning disability and acquired brain injury. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 5, 1–100.

11.

Lobentanz, I. S., Asenbaum, S., Vass, K., Sauter, C., Klösch, G., Kollegger, H., et al. (2004). Factors influencing quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients: Disability, depressive mood, fatigue and sleep quality. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 110, 6–13. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2004.00257.x.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Morris, J., Perez, D., & McNoe, B. (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 7, 85–91.PubMedCrossRef

13.

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

14.

Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

15.

Weiss, D. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing for effective and efficient measurement in counseling and education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 70–84.

16.

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, S22–S31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hill, C. D., Edwards, M. C., Thissen, D., Langer, M. M., Wirth, R. J., Burwinkle, T. M., et al. (2007). Practical issues in the application of item response theory: A demonstration using items from the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core scales. Medical Care, 45, S39–S47. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000259879.05499.eb.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Roddey, T. S., Kraft, G. H., Kim, J., & Amtmann, D. (2012). A PROMIS fatigue short form for use by individuals who have multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1021–1030. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0011-8.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Becker, H., Stuifbergen, A., Lee, H., & Kullberg, V. (2014). Reliability and validity of PROMIS cognitive abilities and cognitive concerns scales among people with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 16, 1–8. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2012-047.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

Senders, A., Hanes, D., Bourdette, D., Whitham, R., & Shinto, L. (2014). Reducing survey burden: Feasibility and validity of PROMIS measures in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 20, 1102–1111. doi:10.1177/1352458513517279.CrossRef

21.

Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology, 78, 1860–1867. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f744.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

22.

Cella, D., Nowinski, C., Peterman, A., Victorson, D., Miller, D., Lai, J.-S., et al. (2011). The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, S28–S36. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.025.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

23.

McDonald, W. I., Compston, A., Edan, G., Goodkin, D., Hartung, H. P., Lublin, F. D., et al. (2001). Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology, 50, 121–127.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lublin, F. D., & Reingold, S. C. (1996). Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: Results of an international survey. National multiple sclerosis society (USA) advisory committee on clinical trials of new agents in multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 46, 907–911.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33, 1444–1452.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Leplège, A., Ecosse, E., Verdier, A., & Perneger, T. V. (1998). The French SF-36 health survey: Translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1013–1023.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1179–1194. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). PROMIS cooperative group. evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45, S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

30.

Leplege, A., Ecosse, E., Pouchot, J., Coste, J., & Perneger, T. (2001). MOS SF36 Questionnaire. Manual and Guidelines for Scores’ Interpretation. Paris: Editions Estem.

31.

Zheng, Y., Chang, C.-H., & Chang, H.-H. (2013). Content-balancing strategy in bifactor computerized adaptive patient-reported outcome measurement. Quality of Life Research, 22, 491–499. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0179-6.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Cameletti, M., Caviezel, V., (2010). CMC: Cronbach-Mesbah Curve.

33.

Ahn, S. C., & Horenstein, A. R. (2013). Eigenvalue ratio test for the number of factors. Econometrica, 81, 1203–1227. doi:10.3982/ECTA8968.CrossRef

34.

Muthén L., Muthén, B. (2012). MPlus user’s guide. 7th Ed. Muthén Muthén.

35.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

36.

Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017.CrossRef

37.

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M, Jr, & Ware, J. E. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HITTM). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913–933. doi:10.1023/A:1026163113446.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C.-H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: Item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 95–108. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9168-6.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174. doi:10.1007/BF02296272.CrossRef

40.

Andersen, J., (1970). Asymptotic properties of conditional maximum likelihood estimators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 32, 283–301.

41.

Mair, P., Hatzinger, R., Extended rasch modeling: The eRm package for the application of IRT Models in R 2007. http://epub.wu.ac.at/332/ (accessed April 18, 2014).

42.

Akaike, H. (1998). Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In E. Parzen, K. Tanabe, & G. Kitagawa (Eds.), Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike (pp. 199–213). New York: Springer.CrossRef

43.

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136.CrossRef

44.

Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.

45.

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of Item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.

46.

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 35(1), p. 139.

47.

Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & 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, 1–30.PubMedCentralPubMed

48.

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: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.

49.

SPSS Inc. Released 2008. SPSS statistics for windows, Version 17.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

50.

R Core Team. R. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

51.

Benito-León, J., Morales, J. M., Rivera-Navarro, J., & Mitchell, A. (2003). A review about the impact of multiple sclerosis on health-related quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1291–1303. doi:10.1080/09638280310001608591.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Myers, J. A., McPherson, K. M., Taylor, W. J., Weatherall, M., & McNaughton, H. K. (2003). Duration of condition is unrelated to health-state valuation on the EuroQoL. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 209–215.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Marrie, R. A., Miller, D. M., Chelune, G. J., & Cohen, J. A. (2003). Validity and reliability of the MSQLI in cognitively impaired patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills Basingstoke England), 9, 621–626.CrossRef

54.

Boyer, L., Simeoni, M.-C., Loundou, A., D’Amato, T., Reine, G., Lancon, C., et al. (2010). The development of the S-QoL 18: A shortened quality of life questionnaire for patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 121, 241–250. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2010.05.019.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Kleinman, A., Eisenberg, L., & Good, B. (1978). Culture, illness, and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 88, 251–258.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Aaronson, N. K., Acquadro, C., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bucquet, D., Bullinger, M., et al. (1992). International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality of Life Research, 1, 349–351.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Leplège, A., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., et al. (1998). Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 913–923.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Al-Tahan, A. M., Al-Jumah, M. A., Bohlega, S. M., Al-Shammari, S. N., Al-Sharoqi, I. A., Dahdaleh, M. P., et al. (2011). The importance of quality-of-life assessment in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis. Recommendations from the Middle East MS advisory group. Neurosciences (Riyadh Saudi Arab), 16, 109–113.

60.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Guarnaccia, J. B., Aslan, M., O’Connor, T. Z., Hope, M., Kazis, L., Kashner, C. M., et al. (2006). Quality of life for veterans with multiple sclerosis on disease-modifying agents: Relationship to disability. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43, 35–44.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Visschedijk, M. A. J., Uitdehaag, B. M. J., Klein, M., van der Ploeg, E., Collette, E. H., Vleugels, L., et al. (2004). Value of health-related quality of life to predict disability course in multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 63, 2046–2050.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Nortvedt, M. W., Riise, T., Myhr, K. M., & Nyland, H. I. (2000). Quality of life as a predictor for change in disability in MS. Neurology, 55, 51–54.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27, S178–S189.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Baumstarck, K., Butzkueven, H., Fernández, O., Flachenecker, P., Stecchi, S., Idiman, E., et al. (2013). Responsiveness of the multiple sclerosis international quality of life questionnaire to disability change: A longitudinal study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 127. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-127.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

66.

Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38, II73–II82.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Ostini, R., Nering, M. L. (Eds.). (2006). Polytomous item response theory models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Titel: Development of a cross-cultural item bank for measuring quality of life related to mental health in multiple sclerosis patients
verfasst von: Pierre Michel
Pascal Auquier
Karine Baumstarck
Jean Pelletier
Anderson Loundou
Badih Ghattas
Laurent Boyer
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0948-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2015

PROMIS® pediatric self-report scales distinguish subgroups of children within and across six common pediatric chronic health conditions

Health-related quality of life of Asian patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore

Systematic content evaluation and review of measurement properties of questionnaires for measuring self-reported fatigue among older people

An audit of diabetes-dependent quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Malaysia

Gender role orientation is associated with health-related quality of life differently among African-American, Hispanic, and White youth

Psychometric properties of the Chalder Fatigue Scale revisited: an exploratory structural equation modeling approach

Premium Partner