Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differential item functioning by language on the PROMIS® physical functioning items for children and adolescents

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the equivalence of self-reports of physical functioning between pediatric respondents to the English- and Spanish-language patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) physical functioning item banks.

Methods

The PROMIS pediatric physical functioning item banks include 29 upper extremity items and 23 mobility items. A sample of 5091 children and adolescents (mean age = 12 years, range 8–17; 49% male) completed the English-language version of the items. A sample of 605 children and adolescents (mean age = 12 years, range 8–17; 55% male; 96% Hispanic) completed the Spanish-language version of the items.

Results

We found language (English versus Spanish) differential item functioning (DIF) for 4 upper extremity items and 7 mobility items. Product-moment correlations between estimated upper extremity and mobility scores using the English versus the equated Spanish item parameters for Spanish-language respondents were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. After excluding cases with significant person misfit, we found DIF for the same 4 upper extremity items that had DIF in the full sample and for 12 mobility items (including the same 7 mobility items that had DIF in the full sample). The identification of DIF items between English- and Spanish-language respondents was affected slightly by excluding respondents displaying person misfit.

Conclusions

The results of this study provide support for measurement equivalence of self-reports of physical functioning by children and adolescents who completed the English- and Spanish-language surveys. Future analyses are needed to replicate the results of this study in other samples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Young, S., et al. (2010). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. DeWitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794–804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Yang, F. M., Heslin, K. C., Mehta, K. M., Yang, C.-W., Oceptek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., et al. (2011). A comparison of item response theory-based methods for examining differential item functioning in object naming test by language of assessment among older Latinos. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 440–460.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hays, R. D. (2011). Response 1 to Reeve’s chapter: Applying item response theory for questionnaire evaluation. In J. Madans, K. Miller, A. Maitland, & G. Willis (Eds.), Question evaluation methods: Contributing to the science of data quality (pp. 125–135). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Paz, S. H., Spritzer, K. L., Morales, L. S., & Hays, R. D. (2013). Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS®) Spanish physical functioning items. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1819–1830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reise, S. P. (1990). A comparison of item- and person-fit methods of assessing model-data fit in IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Skinner, C., Wright, V. R., Aratani, Y., et al. (2010). English language proficiency, family economic security, and child development. National Center for Children in Poverty website. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_948.html.

  8. Toluna Group Ltd. https://us.toluna.com/.

  9. Barona, A., & Miller, J. A. (1994). Short acculturation scale for Hispanic youth (SAS-Y): A preliminary report. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., et al. (2008). Multinational trials-recommendation on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR patient reported outcome translation and linguistic validation good practice task force report. Value in Health, 12, 430–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22–S31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi, S., Gibbons, L., & Crane, P. (2011). Lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(2), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polytomous item response models and standardized indices. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kincaid, J., Fishburne, R., Rodgers, R., & Chissom, B. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel (Branch Report 8-75). Millington: Chief of Naval Training.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of internet panels to conduct surveys. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 685–690.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (Grant Number 1U2-CCA186878-01), National Institute on Aging (Grant Number P30-AG02168), and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (Grant Number P20-MD000182).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, UCLA Department of Medicine, 911 Broxton Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA

    Ron D. Hays, José Luis Calderón, Karen L. Spritzer & Sylvia H. Paz

  2. UCLA Department of Psychology, 3583 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1563, USA

    Steve P. Reise

Authors
  1. Ron D. Hays
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Luis Calderón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen L. Spritzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steve P. Reise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sylvia H. Paz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ron D. Hays.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hays, R.D., Calderón, J.L., Spritzer, K.L. et al. Differential item functioning by language on the PROMIS® physical functioning items for children and adolescents. Qual Life Res 27, 235–247 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1691-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1691-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation