J A McGrane1, P N Butow, M Sze, M Eisenbruch, D Goldstein, M T King. 1. Pearson Psychometric Laboratory, Faculty of Education, University of Western Australia, M428, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia, joshua.mcgrane@uwa.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among immigrants of Arabic-, Chinese- and Greek-speaking backgrounds, and Anglo-Australian-born controls, recruited through Cancer Registries (n = 591) and oncology clinics (n = 900). The survey included four subscales, with newly developed items addressing unmet need in culturally competent health information and patient support (CCHIPS), and items adapted from existing questionnaires addressing physical and daily living (PDL), sexuality (SEX) and survivorship (SURV) unmet need. The survey was translated into Arabic, Chinese and Greek. Rasch analysis was carried out on the four domains. RESULTS: Whilst many items were mistargeted to less prevalent areas of unmet need, causing substantial floor effects in person estimates, reliability indices were acceptable. The CCHIPS domain showed differential item functioning (DIF) for cultural background and language, and the PDL domain showed DIF for treatment phase and gender. The results for SEX and SURV domains were limited by floor effects and missing responses. All domains showed adequate fit to the model after DIF was resolved and a small number of items were deleted. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the intricacies in designing a culturally competent survey that can be applied to culturally and linguistically diverse groups across different treatment contexts. Overall, the results demonstrate that this survey is somewhat invariant with respect to these factors. Future refinements are suggested to enhance the survey's cultural competence and general validity.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the invariance of a culturally competent multi-lingual unmet needs survey. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among immigrants of Arabic-, Chinese- and Greek-speaking backgrounds, and Anglo-Australian-born controls, recruited through Cancer Registries (n = 591) and oncology clinics (n = 900). The survey included four subscales, with newly developed items addressing unmet need in culturally competent health information and patient support (CCHIPS), and items adapted from existing questionnaires addressing physical and daily living (PDL), sexuality (SEX) and survivorship (SURV) unmet need. The survey was translated into Arabic, Chinese and Greek. Rasch analysis was carried out on the four domains. RESULTS: Whilst many items were mistargeted to less prevalent areas of unmet need, causing substantial floor effects in person estimates, reliability indices were acceptable. The CCHIPS domain showed differential item functioning (DIF) for cultural background and language, and the PDL domain showed DIF for treatment phase and gender. The results for SEX and SURV domains were limited by floor effects and missing responses. All domains showed adequate fit to the model after DIF was resolved and a small number of items were deleted. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the intricacies in designing a culturally competent survey that can be applied to culturally and linguistically diverse groups across different treatment contexts. Overall, the results demonstrate that this survey is somewhat invariant with respect to these factors. Future refinements are suggested to enhance the survey's cultural competence and general validity.
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Jakob B Bjorner; Neil Aaronson; Thierry Conroy; Ann Cull; Peter Fayers; Marianne Hjermstad; Mirjam Sprangers; Marianne Sullivan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Francis J Keefe; Laura S Porter; Rebecca A Shelby; Maria R Fawzy; Tracy K Gosselin; Bryce B Reeve; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: P N Butow; M L Bell; L J Aldridge; M Sze; M Eisenbruch; M Jefford; P Schofield; A Girgis; M King; P S Duggal; J McGrane; D Goldstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alan Tennant; Massimo Penta; Luigi Tesio; Gunnar Grimby; Jean-Louis Thonnard; Anita Slade; Gemma Lawton; Anna Simone; Jane Carter; Asa Lundgren-Nilsson; Maria Tripolski; Haim Ring; Fin Biering-Sørensen; Crt Marincek; Helena Burger; Suzanne Phillips Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard Gershon; David Cella; Kelly Dineen; Sarah Rosenbloom; Amy Peterman; Jin-Shei Lai Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.217