OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for differential item functioning (DIF) related to several covariates. BACKGROUND: DIF occurs in an item when, after controlling for the underlying trait measured by the test, the probability of endorsing the item varies across groups. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of two studies of participants with back pain (total n = 875). We used a hybrid item response theory/ logistic regression approach for detecting DIF. We obtained scores that accounted for DIF. We evaluated the impact of DIF on individual and group scores, and compared scores that ignored or accounted for DIF in terms of the strength of association with SF-36 subscale scores. RESULTS: DIF was found in 18/23 items. Salient scale-level differential functioning was found related to age, education, and employment. Overall 24 participants (3%) had salient scale-level differential functioning. Mean scores across demographic groups differed minimally when accounting for DIF. The strength of association of scores with SF-36 scores was similar for scores that ignored and scores that accounted for DIF. CONCLUSIONS: The modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire appears to have largely negligible DIF related to the covariates assessed here.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for differential item functioning (DIF) related to several covariates. BACKGROUND: DIF occurs in an item when, after controlling for the underlying trait measured by the test, the probability of endorsing the item varies across groups. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of two studies of participants with back pain (total n = 875). We used a hybrid item response theory/ logistic regression approach for detecting DIF. We obtained scores that accounted for DIF. We evaluated the impact of DIF on individual and group scores, and compared scores that ignored or accounted for DIF in terms of the strength of association with SF-36 subscale scores. RESULTS: DIF was found in 18/23 items. Salient scale-level differential functioning was found related to age, education, and employment. Overall 24 participants (3%) had salient scale-level differential functioning. Mean scores across demographic groups differed minimally when accounting for DIF. The strength of association of scores with SF-36 scores was similar for scores that ignored and scores that accounted for DIF. CONCLUSIONS: The modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire appears to have largely negligible DIF related to the covariates assessed here.
Authors: Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Karon Cook; David Cella; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Ron D Hays; Jeanne A Teresi Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Hollingworth; Brook Martin; Scott S Emerson; Darryl T Gray; Steven Overman; David Robinson; Thomas Staiger; Frank Wessbecher; Sean D Sullivan; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Patrick J Heagerty; Judith A Turner; Brook I Martin Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2005-05-24 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Ricardo Pietrobon; Marcus Taylor; Ulrich Guller; Laurence D Higgins; Danny O Jacobs; Timothy Carey Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2004-10-25 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Neil W Scott; Peter M Fayers; Neil K Aaronson; Andrew Bottomley; Alexander de Graeff; Mogens Groenvold; Chad Gundy; Michael Koller; Morten A Petersen; Mirjam A G Sprangers Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Karon F Cook; Seung W Choi; Paul K Crane; Richard A Deyo; Kurt L Johnson; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Laura E Gibbons; Paul K Crane; Kala M Mehta; Otto Pedraza; Yuxiao Tang; Jennifer J Manly; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Jeanne Teresi; Richard N Jones; Dan Mungas Journal: Ageing Res Date: 2011-04-28