INTRODUCTION: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses are commonly used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. There is, however, a lack of consensus as to how to assess the practical impact of statistically significant DIF results. METHODS: Using our previously published ordinal logistic regression DIF results for the Fatigue scale of a HRQoL instrument as an example, the practical impact on a particular Norwegian clinical trial was investigated. The results were used to determine the difference in mean Fatigue scores assuming that the same trial was conducted in the UK. The results were then compared with published information on what would be considered a clinically important change in scores. RESULTS: The item with the largest DIF effect resulted in differences between the mean English and Norwegian Fatigue scores that, although small, could be considered clinically important. Sensitivity analyses showed that larger differences were found for shorter scales, and when the proportions in each response category were equal. DISCUSSION: Our scenarios suggest that translation differences in an item can result in small, but clinically important, differences at the scale score level. This is more likely to be problematic for observational studies than for clinical trials, where randomised groups are stratified by centre.
INTRODUCTION: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses are commonly used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. There is, however, a lack of consensus as to how to assess the practical impact of statistically significant DIF results. METHODS: Using our previously published ordinal logistic regression DIF results for the Fatigue scale of a HRQoL instrument as an example, the practical impact on a particular Norwegian clinical trial was investigated. The results were used to determine the difference in mean Fatigue scores assuming that the same trial was conducted in the UK. The results were then compared with published information on what would be considered a clinically important change in scores. RESULTS: The item with the largest DIF effect resulted in differences between the mean English and Norwegian Fatigue scores that, although small, could be considered clinically important. Sensitivity analyses showed that larger differences were found for shorter scales, and when the proportions in each response category were equal. DISCUSSION: Our scenarios suggest that translation differences in an item can result in small, but clinically important, differences at the scale score level. This is more likely to be problematic for observational studies than for clinical trials, where randomised groups are stratified by centre.
Authors: N W Scott; P M Fayers; N K Aaronson; A Bottomley; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N W Scott; P M Fayers; A Bottomley; N K Aaronson; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Neil K Aaronson; Wei-Chu Chie; Thierry Conroy; Anna Costantini; Peter Fayers; Jorunn Helbostad; Bernhard Holzner; Stein Kaasa; Susanne Singer; Galina Velikova; Teresa Young Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Emmanuel Navarro-Flores; Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias; Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo; María Reina-Bueno; Daniel López-López; Carlos Romero-Morales; Patricia Palomo-López; César Calvo-Lobo Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 3.315
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: Morten Aa Petersen; Johannes M Giesinger; Bernhard Holzner; Juan I Arraras; Thierry Conroy; Eva-Maria Gamper; Madeleine T King; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Teresa Young; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Linda Dirven; Jacob C Reijneveld; Neil K Aaronson; Andrew Bottomley; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Martin J B Taphoorn Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Emmanuel Navarro-Flores; Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias; Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo; Daniel Lopez-Lopez; Juan Manuel Vilar-Fernandez; Patricia Palomo-Lopez; Cesar Calvo-Lobo Journal: Aging Dis Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.745