Assessing measurement invariance of MSQOL-54 across Italian and English versions

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 29 - Trang 783-791 - 2019
Andrea Giordano1,2, Silvia Testa2,3, Marta Bassi4, Sabina Cilia5, Antonio Bertolotto6, Maria Esmeralda Quartuccio7, Erika Pietrolongo8, Monica Falautano9, Monica Grobberio10, Claudia Niccolai11,12, Beatrice Allegri13, Rosa Gemma Viterbo14, Paolo Confalonieri15, Ambra Mara Giovannetti1,15, Eleonora Cocco16,17, Maria Grazia Grasso18, Alessandra Lugaresi19,20, Elisa Ferriani21, Ugo Nocentini22,23, Mauro Zaffaroni24, Alysha De Livera25, George Jelinek25, Alessandra Solari1, Rosalba Rosato2
1Unit of Neuroepidemiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy
2Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
3Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Aosta Valley, Aosta, Italy
4Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, "L. Sacco", Università Di Milano, Milan, Italy
5Multiple Sclerosis Center, University Polyclinic Hospital G. Rodolico, Catania, Italy
6Neurology & Regional Referral Multiple Sclerosis Centre (CReSM), University Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Italy
7Department of Neuroscience, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy
8Department of Neurosciences, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University G. d’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
9Servizio di Psicologia e Neuropsicologia, UO di Neurologia e Riabilitazione Specialistica, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
10Laboratory of Clinical Neuropsychology, Psychology Unit, ASST Lariana, Como, Italy
11IRCCS Fondazione Carlo Gnocchi, Florence, Italy
12Department of NEUROFARBA, Section of Neurosciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
13Multiple Sclerosis Center, Neurology Unit, Hospital of Vaio, Fidenza, Italy
14Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neurosciences and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
15Unit of Neuroimmunology and Neuromuscular Diseases, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy
16Department of Medical Science and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
17Multiple Sclerosis Center, ASSL Cagliari, ATS Sardegna, Cagliari, Italy
18Multiple Sclerosis Unit, IRCCS S. Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy
19UOSI Riabilitazione Sclerosi Multipla, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
20Dipartimento Di Scienze Biomediche E Neuromotorie, Università Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
21UOC Psicologia Ospedaliera, AUSL di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
22Department of Systems Medicine, “University of Rome Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
23Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, IRCCS S. Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy
24Multiple Sclerosis Centre, ASST Valle Olona, Gallarate, Italy
25Neuroepidemiology Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Tóm tắt

The Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQOL-54) is a specific multiple sclerosis (MS) health-related quality of life inventory consisting of 52 items organized into 12 subscales plus two single items. No study was found in literature assessing its measurement invariance across language versions. We investigated whether MSQOL-54 items provide unbiased measurements of underlying constructs across Italian and English versions. Three constrained levels of measurement invariance were evaluated: configural invariance where equivalent numbers of factors/factor patterns were required; metric invariance where equivalent factor loadings were required; and scalar invariance where equivalent item intercepts between groups were required. Comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) fit indices and their changes between nested models were used to assess tenability of invariance constraints. Overall, the dataset included 3669 MS patients: 1605 (44%) Italian, mean age 41 years, 62% women, 69% with mild level of disability; 2064 (56%) English-speaking (840 [41%] from North America, 797 [39%] from Australasia, 427 [20%] from UK and Ireland), mean age 46 years, 83% women, 54% with mild level of disability. The configural invariance model showed acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.904, SRMR = 0.046); imposing loadings and intercepts equality constraints produced negligible worsening of fit (ΔRMSEA < 0.001, ΔCFI = − 0.002, ΔSRMR = 0.002 for metric invariance; ΔRMSEA = 0.003, ΔCFI = − 0.013, ΔSRMR = 0.003 for scalar invariance). These findings support measurement invariance of the MSQOL-54 across the two language versions, suggesting that the questionnaire has the same meaning and the same measurement paramaters in the Italian and English versions.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Compston, A., McDonald, I., Noseworthy, J., Lassmann, H., Miller, D., Smith, K., et al. (2006). McAlpine’s multiple sclerosis (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. GBD 2016 Multiple Sclerosis Collaborators. (2019). Global, regional, and national burden of multiple sclerosis 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurology,18(3), 269–285. Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports,10, 397–406. Mitchell, A. J., Benito-León, J., González, J. M., & Rivera-Navarro, J. (2005). Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. Lancet Neurology,4, 556–566. Rothwell, P. M., McDowell, Z., Wong, C. K., & Dorman, P. J. (1997). Doctors and patients don’t agree: cross sectional study of patients and doctors perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ,314, 1580–1583. Solari, A. (2005). Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Quality of Life Outcomes,3, 16. Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality Life Research,4, 187–206. Cella, D. F., Dineen, M. A., Arnason, B., Heeley, E., Rostgaard, I., Løvendahl, B., et al. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology,47, 129–139. Solari, A., Filippini, G., Mendozzi, L., Ghezzi, A., Cifani, S., Barbieri, E., et al. (1999). Validation of Italian multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 questionnaire. Journal Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry,67, 158–162. Acquadro, C., Lafortune, L., & Mear, I. (2003). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: translation in French Canadian of the MSQoL-54. Health Quality Life Outcomes,1, 70. Yamamoto, T., Ogata, K., Katagishi, M., Shimizu, H., Ogawa, M., Yamamura, T., et al. (2004). Validation of the Japanese-translated version Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 instrument. Rinsho Shinkeigaku,44, 417–421. Idiman, E., Uzunel, F., Ozakbas, S., Yozbatiran, N., Oguz, M., Callioglu, B., et al. (2006). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire (MSQOL-54) in a Turkish multiple sclerosis sample. Journal Neurological Sciences,240, 77–80. Pekmezovic, T., Kisic Tepavcevic, D., Kostic, J., & Drulovic, J. (2007). Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQOL-54 in Serbian multiple sclerosis patients sample. Quality Life Research,16, 1383–1387. Füvesi, J., Bencsik, K., Benedek, K., Mátyás, K., Mészáros, E., Rajda, C., et al. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ‘Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Instrument’ in Hungarian. Multiple Sclerosis,14, 391–398. El Alaoui Taoussi, K., Ait Ben Haddou, E., Benomar, A., Abouqal, R., & Yahyaoui, M. (2012). Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: Arabic language translation and transcultural adaptation of MSQOL-54. Revue Neurologique,168, 444–449. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review,41, 71–90. Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal Cross-Cultural Psychology,49(5), 713–734. Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & Suh, Y. (2010). Validity, invariance and responsiveness of a self-report measure of functional limitations and disability in multiple sclerosis. Disability Rehabilitation,32, 1260–1271. Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & Mullen, S. (2011). Longitudinal measurement invariance of the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12. Journal Neurological Sciences,305, 75–79. Motl, R. W., Mullen, S., & McAuley, E. (2012). Multi-group measurement invariance of the multiple sclerosis walking scale-12? Neurological Research,34(2), 149–152. Cox, S. D., & Pakenham, K. I. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance testing of the Young Carer of Parents Inventory (YCOPI). Rehabilitation Psychology,59, 439–452. Chung, H., Kim, J., Askew, R. L., Jones, S. M., Cook, K. F., & Amtmann, D. (2015). Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples. Quality Life Research,24, 1829–1834. Chung, H., Kim, J., Park, R., Bamer, A. M., Bocell, F. D., & Amtmann, D. (2016). Testing the measurement invariance of the University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale short form across four diagnostic subgroups. Quality Life Research,25, 2559–2564. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin,105(3), 456. Santos, D., Abad, F. J., Miret, M., Chatterji, S., Olaya, B., Zawisza, K., et al. (2017). Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries. Quality of Life Research,27, 1015–1025. Geyh, S., Fellinghauer, B. A., Kirchberger, I., & Post, M. W. (2010). Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes,8, 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-94. Hadgkiss, E. J., Jelinek, G. A., Weiland, T. T., Pereira, N. G., Marck, C. H., & van derMeer, D. M. (2013). Methodology of an international study of people with multiple sclerosis recruited through web 2.0 platforms: demographics, lifestyle, and disease characteristics. Neurology Research International,2013, 580–596. Jelinek, G. A., De Livera, A. M., Marck, C. H., Brown, C. R., Neate, S. L., Keryn, L., et al. (2016). Lifestyle, medication and socio-demographic determinants of mental and physical health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurology,16, 235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0763-4. Bassi, M., Falautano, M., Cilia, S., Goretti, B., Grobberio, M., Pattini, M., et al. (2016). Illness perception and well-being among persons with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers. Journal Clinical Psychology Medical Settings,23, 33–52. Bassi, M., Falautano, M., Cilia, S., Goretti, B., Grobberio, M., Pattini, M., et al. (2014). The coexistence of well- and ill-being in persons with multiple sclerosis, their caregivers and health professionals. Journal Neurological Sciences,337, 67–73. Rosato, R., Testa, S., Bertolotto, A., Confalonieri, P., Patti, F., Lugaresi, A., et al. (2016). Development of a short version of MSQOL-54 using factor analysis and item response theory. PLoS ONE,11, e0153466. Rosato, R., Testa, S., Bertolotto, A., Scavelli, F., Giovannetti, A. M., Confalonieri, P., et al. (2018). Prospective validation of the abbreviated, electronic version of the MSQOL-54. Multiple Sclerosis,25(6), 856–866. Solari, A., Motta, A., Mendozzi, L., Pucci, E., Forni, M., Mancardi, G., et al. (2004). Computer-aided retraining of memory and attention in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Journal Neurological Sciences,222, 99–104. Massacesi, L., Tramacere, I., Amoroso, S., Battaglia, M. A., Benedetti, M. D., et al. (2014). Azathioprine versus beta interferons for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial. PLoS ONE,9, e113371. Polman, C., Reingold, S., Edan, G., Filippi, M., Hartung, H., Kappos, L., et al. (2005). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Annals Neurology,58, 840–846. Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., et al. (2011). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals Neurology,69, 292–302. Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology,33, 1444–1452. Hohol, M. J., Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: a simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology,45, 251–255. Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute. Giordano, A., Pucci, E., Naldi, P., Mendozzi, L., Milanese, C., Tronci, F., et al. (2009). Responsiveness of patient- reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study. Journal Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry,80, 1023–1028. Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(3), 479–515. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76–99)., Concepts, issues, and applications London: Sage. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,14(3), 464–504. Hays, R. D., Revicki, D., & Coyne, K. S. (2005). Application of structural equation modeling to health outcomes research. Evaluation Health Professions,28, 295–309. van Bebber, J., Flens, G., Wigman, J. T. W., de Beurs, E., Sytema, S., Wunderink, L., et al. (2018). Application of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) item parameters for anxiety and depression in the Netherlands. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research,27(4), e1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1744. Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: software for coarsened exact matching. Journal Statistical Software. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v030.i09. Lix, L. M., Osman, B. A., Adachi, J. D., Towheed, T., Hopman, W., Davison, K. S., et al. (2012). Measurement equivalence of the SF-36 in the canadian multicentre osteoporosis study. Health Quality of Life Outcomes,10, 29. Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus user’s guide. 6th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: a comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling,21(2), 167–180. Marrie, R. A., Cutter, G., Tyry, T., Hadjimichael, O., Campagnolo, D., et al. (2005). Changes in the ascertainment of multiple sclerosis. Neurology,65, 1066–1070. Marrie, R.A., Cutter, G., Tyry, T., Vollmer, T., Campagnolo, D. (2006). Does multiple sclerosis-associated disability differ between races? Neurology, 66(8), 1235–1240.
Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 29

783-791

Thông tin tác giả