Antoine Regnault1, Michael Herdman. 1. Mapi, HEOR and Strategic Market Access, 27, rue de la Villette, 69003, Lyon, France, aregnault@mapigroup.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical when they are used in international settings. The Universalist model of equivalence was proposed as a framework to investigate cross-cultural equivalence. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how quantitative methods can be used to investigate cross-cultural equivalence within this framework. METHODS: The six types of equivalence of the Universalist model were reviewed from a statistical perspective and statistical techniques allowing addressing the underlying question were identified. These methods are described and examples are provided of how they can be applied. An integrated pragmatic approach to the exploration of cross-cultural equivalence was developed based on these methods. RESULTS: The statistical techniques identified were factor analysis to explore conceptual equivalence, differential item functioning to explore semantic and item equivalence, and comparison of measurement properties for the measurement equivalence. The statistical techniques addressing operational equivalence were found to be diverse and highly specific to the operational aspect under investigation. Functional equivalence involves a comprehensive appraisal of the potential impact of the results of the other equivalences on the conclusions of the research. This structured appraisal of functional equivalence offers a framework for a comprehensive, but flexible, approach for the efficient application of statistical analyses to explore cross-cultural equivalence of PRO instruments. CONCLUSION: The different types of equivalence of the Universalist model can be investigated using quantitative methods. An integrated approach, which could be used in a variety of settings, was developed to allow the whole notion of cross-cultural equivalence to be comprehensively and efficiently addressed.
PURPOSE: The cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical when they are used in international settings. The Universalist model of equivalence was proposed as a framework to investigate cross-cultural equivalence. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how quantitative methods can be used to investigate cross-cultural equivalence within this framework. METHODS: The six types of equivalence of the Universalist model were reviewed from a statistical perspective and statistical techniques allowing addressing the underlying question were identified. These methods are described and examples are provided of how they can be applied. An integrated pragmatic approach to the exploration of cross-cultural equivalence was developed based on these methods. RESULTS: The statistical techniques identified were factor analysis to explore conceptual equivalence, differential item functioning to explore semantic and item equivalence, and comparison of measurement properties for the measurement equivalence. The statistical techniques addressing operational equivalence were found to be diverse and highly specific to the operational aspect under investigation. Functional equivalence involves a comprehensive appraisal of the potential impact of the results of the other equivalences on the conclusions of the research. This structured appraisal of functional equivalence offers a framework for a comprehensive, but flexible, approach for the efficient application of statistical analyses to explore cross-cultural equivalence of PRO instruments. CONCLUSION: The different types of equivalence of the Universalist model can be investigated using quantitative methods. An integrated approach, which could be used in a variety of settings, was developed to allow the whole notion of cross-cultural equivalence to be comprehensively and efficiently addressed.
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: J E Ware; M Kosinski; B Gandek; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; P Bech; J Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplège; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S D Keller; J E Ware; B Gandek; N K Aaronson; J Alonso; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J Brazier; M Bullinger; S Fukuhara; S Kaasa; A Leplège; R W Sanson-Fisher; M Sullivan; S Wood-Dauphinee Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Elizabeth A Hahn; Michael A Kallen; Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Mildred Ramirez; David Cella; Jeanne A Teresi Journal: Psychol Test Assess Model Date: 2016-06-27
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Madeleine King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Olalekan Aiyegbusi; Derek Kyte; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; E Basch; Jill Bell; Antonia Bennett; Vishal Bhatnagar; Jane Blazeby; Andrew Bottomley; Julia Brown; Michael Brundage; Lisa Campbell; Joseph C Cappelleri; Heather Draper; Amylou C Dueck; Carolyn Ells; Lori Frank; Robert M Golub; Ingolf Griebsch; Kirstie Haywood; Amanda Hunn; Bellinda King-Kallimanis; Laura Martin; Sandra Mitchell; Thomas Morel; Linda Nelson; Josephine Norquist; Daniel O'Connor; Michael Palmer; Donald Patrick; Gary Price; Antoine Regnault; Ameeta Retzer; Dennis Revicki; Jane Scott; Richard Stephens; Grace Turner; Antonia Valakas; Galina Velikova; Maria von Hildebrand; Anita Walker; Lari Wenzel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maria José Fuster-RuizdeApodaca; Kelly Safreed-Harmon; Marta Pastor de la Cal; Ana Laguia; Denise Naniche; Jeffrey V Lazarus Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-06-09