PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to improve the quality and applicability of the 6 Dutch scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI; Demorest & Erdman, 1986, 1987, 1988) using item response theory (IRT). IRT modeling can produce precise, valid, and relatively brief instruments, resulting in minimal response burden (Edelen & Reeve, 2006). METHOD: We investigated (a) whether items fit to the graded response model (GRM; Samejima, 1969) using Stone and Zhang's (2003) procedure to test goodness of fit and (b) whether items showed differential item functioning (DIF) with the IRT log-likelihood ratio approach for 5 group variables: gender, age, living arrangement, use of hearing aids, and degree of hearing impairment. We investigated the magnitude of DIF by calculating the maximum difference between expected item scores for subgroups of the group variables of items showing DIF. RESULTS: In a cross-sectional study, 408 consecutive individuals with hearing impairment completed the Dutch CPHI scales. Twelve items were deleted because of misfit to GRMs, 14 items showed uniform DIF, and 2 showed nonuniform DIF. Five items showing DIF were deleted due to large magnitude of DIF. The short form of the Dutch CPHI scales contains 35 items. CONCLUSIONS: DIF analyses showed that the short form was relatively free of DIF with respect to the 5 group variables. Hence, there is no need to make adjustments for the calculation of subgroup scores.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to improve the quality and applicability of the 6 Dutch scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI; Demorest & Erdman, 1986, 1987, 1988) using item response theory (IRT). IRT modeling can produce precise, valid, and relatively brief instruments, resulting in minimal response burden (Edelen & Reeve, 2006). METHOD: We investigated (a) whether items fit to the graded response model (GRM; Samejima, 1969) using Stone and Zhang's (2003) procedure to test goodness of fit and (b) whether items showed differential item functioning (DIF) with the IRT log-likelihood ratio approach for 5 group variables: gender, age, living arrangement, use of hearing aids, and degree of hearing impairment. We investigated the magnitude of DIF by calculating the maximum difference between expected item scores for subgroups of the group variables of items showing DIF. RESULTS: In a cross-sectional study, 408 consecutive individuals with hearing impairment completed the Dutch CPHI scales. Twelve items were deleted because of misfit to GRMs, 14 items showed uniform DIF, and 2 showed nonuniform DIF. Five items showing DIF were deleted due to large magnitude of DIF. The short form of the Dutch CPHI scales contains 35 items. CONCLUSIONS: DIF analyses showed that the short form was relatively free of DIF with respect to the 5 group variables. Hence, there is no need to make adjustments for the calculation of subgroup scores.
Authors: Arjenne H M Gussenhoven; Johannes R Anema; S Theo Goverts; Judith E Bosmans; Joost M Festen; Sophia E Kramer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Janine Fj Meijerink; Marieke Pronk; Bernadette Paulissen; Birgit I Witte; Bregje van der Wouden; Vera Jansen; Sophia E Kramer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Arjenne H M Gussenhoven; Johannes R Anema; Birgit I Witte; S Theo Goverts; Sophia E Kramer Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2017 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.293
Authors: Hilde L Vreeken; Ger H M B van Rens; Sophia E Kramer; Dirk L Knol; Joost M Festen; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Janine Fj Meijerink; Marieke Pronk; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Vera Jansen; Sophia E Kramer Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.428