A comparison of three methods of assessing differential item functioning (DIF) in the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale: ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and the Mantel chi-square procedure

被引:37
作者
Cameron, Isobel M. [1 ]
Scott, Neil W. [2 ]
Adler, Mats [3 ]
Reid, Ian C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Royal Cornhill Hosp, Psychiat Grp, Div Appl Med, Aberdeen AB25 2ZH, Scotland
[2] Univ Aberdeen, Med Stat Team, Div Appl Hlth Sci, Aberdeen AB25 2ZH, Scotland
[3] Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Neurosci, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
Differential item functioning; Depression; Anxiety; Questionnaires; Item bias; MENTAL-STATE-EXAMINATION; RESPONSE BIAS; HAENSZEL; MODEL; IDENTIFICATION;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-014-0719-3
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
It is important for clinical practice and research that measurement scales of well-being and quality of life exhibit only minimal differential item functioning (DIF). DIF occurs where different groups of people endorse items in a scale to different extents after being matched by the intended scale attribute. We investigate the equivalence or otherwise of common methods of assessing DIF. Three methods of measuring age- and sex-related DIF (ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and Mantel chi(2) procedure) were applied to Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) data pertaining to a sample of 1,068 patients consulting primary care practitioners. Three items were flagged by all three approaches as having either age- or sex-related DIF with a consistent direction of effect; a further three items identified did not meet stricter criteria for important DIF using at least one method. When applying strict criteria for significant DIF, ordinal logistic regression was slightly less sensitive. Ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and contingency table methods yielded consistent results when identifying DIF in the HADS depression and HADS anxiety scales. Regardless of methods applied, investigators should use a combination of statistical significance, magnitude of the DIF effect and investigator judgement when interpreting the results.
引用
收藏
页码:2883 / 2888
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], DIFAS 4 0 DIFFERENTI
[2]   Differential Item Functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36 [J].
Bjorner, JB ;
Kreiner, S ;
Ware, JE ;
Damsgaard, MT ;
Bech, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1189-1202
[3]  
Bond T. G., 2020, Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, V4th ed.
[4]   Differential item functioning of the HADS and PHQ-9: An investigation of age, gender and educational background in a clinical UK primary care sample [J].
Cameron, Isobel M. ;
Crawford, John R. ;
Lawton, Kenneth ;
Reid, Ian C. .
JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, 2013, 147 (1-3) :262-268
[5]   Appropriateness of antidepressant prescribing: an observational study in a Scottish primary-care setting [J].
Cameron, Isobel M. ;
Lawton, Kenneth ;
Reid, Ian C. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2009, 59 (566) :644-649
[6]  
Clauser B.E., 1998, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, V17, P31, DOI [10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1745-3992.1998.TB00619.X]
[7]   Test of item-response bias in the CES-D scale: experience from the New Haven EPESE Study [J].
Cole, SR ;
Kawachi, I ;
Maller, SJ ;
Berkman, LF .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 53 (03) :285-289
[8]   Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques - DIFdetect and difwithpar [J].
Crane, Paul K. ;
Gibbons, Laura E. ;
Jolley, Lance ;
van Belle, Gerald .
MEDICAL CARE, 2006, 44 (11) :S115-S123
[9]   On percentile norms in neuropsychology: Proposed reporting standards and methods for quantifying the uncertainty over the percentile ranks of test scores [J].
Crawford, John R. ;
Garthwaite, Paul H. ;
Slick, Daniel J. .
CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST, 2009, 23 (07) :1173-1195
[10]   Differential item functioning on the Mini-Mental State Examination - An application of the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization procedures [J].
Dorans, Neil J. ;
Kulick, Edward .
MEDICAL CARE, 2006, 44 (11) :S107-S114