BACKGROUND: The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) was designed for use in cross-cultural studies of Japanese and Japanese-American elderly in Japan and the U.S.A. The measurement equivalence in Japanese and English had not been confirmed in prior studies. METHODS: We analyzed the 40 CASI items for differential item functioning (DIF) related to test language, as well as self-reported proficiency with written Japanese, age, and educational attainment in two large epidemiologic studies of Japanese-American elderly: the Kame Project (n=1708) and the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study (HAAS; n = 3148). DIF was present if the demographic groups differed in the probability of success on an item, after controlling for their underlying cognitive functioning ability. RESULTS: While seven CASI items had DIF related to language of testing in Kame (registration of one item; recall of one item; similes; judgment; repeating a phrase; reading and performing a command; and following a three-step instruction), the impact of DIF on participants' scores was minimal. Mean scores for Japanese and English speakers in Kame changed by <0.1 SD after accounting for DIF related to test language. In HAAS, insufficient numbers of participants were tested in Japanese to assess DIF related to test language. In both studies, DIF related to written Japanese proficiency, age, and educational attainment had minimal impact. CONCLUSIONS: To the extent that DIF could be assessed, the CASI appeared to meet the goal of measuring cognitive function equivalently in Japanese and English. Stratified data collection would be needed to confirm this conclusion. DIF assessment should be used in other studies with multiple language groups to confirm that measures function equivalently or, if not, form scores that account for DIF.
BACKGROUND: The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) was designed for use in cross-cultural studies of Japanese and Japanese-American elderly in Japan and the U.S.A. The measurement equivalence in Japanese and English had not been confirmed in prior studies. METHODS: We analyzed the 40 CASI items for differential item functioning (DIF) related to test language, as well as self-reported proficiency with written Japanese, age, and educational attainment in two large epidemiologic studies of Japanese-American elderly: the Kame Project (n=1708) and the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study (HAAS; n = 3148). DIF was present if the demographic groups differed in the probability of success on an item, after controlling for their underlying cognitive functioning ability. RESULTS: While seven CASI items had DIF related to language of testing in Kame (registration of one item; recall of one item; similes; judgment; repeating a phrase; reading and performing a command; and following a three-step instruction), the impact of DIF on participants' scores was minimal. Mean scores for Japanese and English speakers in Kame changed by <0.1 SD after accounting for DIF related to test language. In HAAS, insufficient numbers of participants were tested in Japanese to assess DIF related to test language. In both studies, DIF related to written Japanese proficiency, age, and educational attainment had minimal impact. CONCLUSIONS: To the extent that DIF could be assessed, the CASI appeared to meet the goal of measuring cognitive function equivalently in Japanese and English. Stratified data collection would be needed to confirm this conclusion. DIF assessment should be used in other studies with multiple language groups to confirm that measures function equivalently or, if not, form scores that account for DIF.
Authors: E L Teng; K Hasegawa; A Homma; Y Imai; E Larson; A Graves; K Sugimoto; T Yamaguchi; H Sasaki; D Chiu Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 1994 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: E B Larson; S M McCurry; A B Graves; J D Bowen; M M Rice; W C McCormick; N Zee; A Homma; Y Imai; L White; K Masaki; H Petrovitch; W Ross; M Yamada; Y Mimori; H Sasaki Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Robert Fieo; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Marjorie Kleinman; Joseph P Eimicke; Paul K Crane; David Cella; Jeanne A Teresi Journal: Psychol Test Assess Model Date: 2016
Authors: Natalia O Dmitrieva; Denise Fyffe; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Robert Fieo; Laura B Zahodne; Jamie Hamilton; Guy G Potter; Jennifer J Manly; Heather R Romero; Dan Mungas; Laura E Gibbons Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Lan Yu; Paul K Crane; Chung-Chou H Chang; Tiffany F Hughes; Mary Ganguli Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2012 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Robert Fieo; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Natalia O Dmitrieva; Denise C Fyffe; Alden L Gross; Elizabeth R Sanders; Heather R Romero; Guy G Potter; Jennifer J Manly; Dan M Mungas; Laura E Gibbons Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Keerthi Arani; Viet Nguyen; Kristoffer Rhoads; Susan M McCurry; Lenore Launer; Kamal Masaki; Lon White Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Paul K Crane; Jonathan C Gruhl; Elena A Erosheva; Laura E Gibbons; Susan M McCurry; Kristoffer Rhoads; Viet Nguyen; Keerthi Arani; Kamal Masaki; Lon White Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Alden L Gross; Dan M Mungas; Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Anna MacKay-Brandt; Jennifer J Manly; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Heather Romero; Bonnie Sachs; Michael Thomas; Guy G Potter; Richard N Jones Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2015-11-02
Authors: Denise C Fyffe; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Lisa L Barnes; Jennifer J Manly; David A Bennett; Paul K Crane Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.892