PURPOSE: A fundamental assumption of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement is that all individuals interpret questions about their health status in a consistent manner, such that a measurement model can be constructed that is equivalently applicable to all people in the target population. The related assumption of sample homogeneity has been assessed in various ways, including the many approaches to differential item functioning analysis. METHODS: This expository paper describes the use of latent variable mixture modeling (LVMM), in conjunction with item response theory (IRT), to examine: (a) whether a sample is homogeneous with respect to a unidimensional measurement model, (b) implications of sample heterogeneity with respect to model-predicted scores (theta), and (c) sources of sample heterogeneity. An example is provided using the 10 items of the Short-Form Health Status (SF-36(®)) physical functioning subscale with data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2003) (N = 7,030 adults in Manitoba). RESULTS: The sample was not homogeneous with respect to a unidimensional measurement structure. Specification of three latent classes, to account for sample heterogeneity, resulted in significantly improved model fit. The latent classes were partially explained by demographic and health-related variables. CONCLUSION: The illustrative analyses demonstrate the value of LVMM in revealing the potential implications of sample heterogeneity in the measurement of PROs.
PURPOSE: A fundamental assumption of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement is that all individuals interpret questions about their health status in a consistent manner, such that a measurement model can be constructed that is equivalently applicable to all people in the target population. The related assumption of sample homogeneity has been assessed in various ways, including the many approaches to differential item functioning analysis. METHODS: This expository paper describes the use of latent variable mixture modeling (LVMM), in conjunction with item response theory (IRT), to examine: (a) whether a sample is homogeneous with respect to a unidimensional measurement model, (b) implications of sample heterogeneity with respect to model-predicted scores (theta), and (c) sources of sample heterogeneity. An example is provided using the 10 items of the Short-Form Health Status (SF-36(®)) physical functioning subscale with data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2003) (N = 7,030 adults in Manitoba). RESULTS: The sample was not homogeneous with respect to a unidimensional measurement structure. Specification of three latent classes, to account for sample heterogeneity, resulted in significantly improved model fit. The latent classes were partially explained by demographic and health-related variables. CONCLUSION: The illustrative analyses demonstrate the value of LVMM in revealing the potential implications of sample heterogeneity in the measurement of PROs.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Carolyn E Schwartz; Sara Ahmed; Richard Sawatzky; Tolulope Sajobi; Nancy Mayo; Joel Finkelstein; Lisa Lix; Mathilde G E Verdam; Frans J Oort; Mirjam A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Tolulope T Sajobi; Lisa M Lix; Lara Russell; David Schulz; Juxin Liu; Bruno D Zumbo; Richard Sawatzky Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Xiuyun Wu; Richard Sawatzky; Wilma Hopman; Nancy Mayo; Tolulope T Sajobi; Juxin Liu; Jerilynn Prior; Alexandra Papaioannou; Robert G Josse; Tanveer Towheed; K Shawn Davison; Lisa M Lix Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Richard Sawatzky; Lara B Russell; Tolulope T Sajobi; Lisa M Lix; Jacek Kopec; Bruno D Zumbo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dylan Mackay; Rebecca C Mollard; Matthew Granger; Sharon Bruce; Heather Blewett; Jared Carlberg; Todd Duhamel; Peter Eck; Patrick Faucher; Naomi C Hamm; Ehsan Khafipour; Lisa Lix; Diana McMillan; Semone Myrie; Amir Ravandi; Navdeep Tangri; Meghan Azad; Peter Jh Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lisa M Lix; Xiuyun Wu; Wilma Hopman; Nancy Mayo; Tolulope T Sajobi; Juxin Liu; Jerilynn C Prior; Alexandra Papaioannou; Robert G Josse; Tanveer E Towheed; K Shawn Davison; Richard Sawatzky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Véronique Sébille; Lisa M Lix; Olawale F Ayilara; Tolulope T Sajobi; A Cecile J W Janssens; Richard Sawatzky; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Mathilde G E Verdam Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.147