Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical when they are used in international settings. The Universalist model of equivalence was proposed as a framework to investigate cross-cultural equivalence. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how quantitative methods can be used to investigate cross-cultural equivalence within this framework.
The six types of equivalence of the Universalist model were reviewed from a statistical perspective and statistical techniques allowing addressing the underlying question were identified. These methods are described and examples are provided of how they can be applied. An integrated pragmatic approach to the exploration of cross-cultural equivalence was developed based on these methods.
The statistical techniques identified were factor analysis to explore conceptual equivalence, differential item functioning to explore semantic and item equivalence, and comparison of measurement properties for the measurement equivalence. The statistical techniques addressing operational equivalence were found to be diverse and highly specific to the operational aspect under investigation. Functional equivalence involves a comprehensive appraisal of the potential impact of the results of the other equivalences on the conclusions of the research. This structured appraisal of functional equivalence offers a framework for a comprehensive, but flexible, approach for the efficient application of statistical analyses to explore cross-cultural equivalence of PRO instruments.
The different types of equivalence of the Universalist model can be investigated using quantitative methods. An integrated approach, which could be used in a variety of settings, was developed to allow the whole notion of cross-cultural equivalence to be comprehensively and efficiently addressed.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology a review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131–152. CrossRef
Berry, J. W. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Giroudet, C., & Mear, I. (2004). Linguistic validation manual for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments. Lyon: Mapi Research Institute.
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104. PubMedCrossRef
Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Leplege, 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(11), 913–923. PubMedCrossRef
Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr, Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 933–944. PubMedCrossRef
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Auquier, P., Erhart, M., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., et al. (2007). The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1347–1356. PubMedCrossRef
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bech, P., et al. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1159–1165. PubMedCrossRef
Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., Martin, M., Houchin, C., Gawlicki, M., et al. (2009). Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value Health, 12(4), 430–440. PubMedCrossRef
Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 573–596. CrossRef
Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619. CrossRef
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
Dupuy, H. J. (1984). The psychological general well-being (PGWB) index. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies, pp. 170–183.
Regnault, A. (2007). Méthodes quantitatives pour l’évaluation de la validité interculturelle des instruments de mesure subjective évaluée par les patients. Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 30(11), 1416–1432. CrossRef
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Newbury Park (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, A. S., Kim, S. H., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 15–26. CrossRef
Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsbaum, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53(4), 495–502. CrossRef
Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 197–207. CrossRef
Teresi, J. A. (2006). Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications. Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S152–S170.
van der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G. J., Ader, H. J., & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 267–298. CrossRef
Hidalgo, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903.
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. Directorate of Human Ressources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44. CrossRef
Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (1989). Detecting potentially biased test items: Comparison of IRT area and Mantel-Haenszel methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(4), 313–334. CrossRef
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Interpretation of differential item functioning analyses using external review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(3), 253–258. CrossRef
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264–277. CrossRef
Lee, J. W., Jones, P. S., Mineyama, Y., & Zhang, X. E. (2002). Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 25(4), 295–306. CrossRef
van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 346–360. CrossRef
Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Social Science & Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306. CrossRef
Feldt, L. S., & Kim, S. (2006). Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 589–600. CrossRef
Fledt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha or Kruder-Richardson coefficient twenty is the same for two tests. Psychometrika, 34, 357–370.
Pae, T. I., & Park, G. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and differential test functioning. Language Testing, 23(4), 475–496. CrossRef
Roznowski, M., & Reith, J. (1999). Examining the measurement quality of tests containing differentially functioning items: Do biased items result in poor measurement? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 248–269. CrossRef
- Using quantitative methods within the Universalist model framework to explore the cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome instruments
- Springer International Publishing
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia