Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:18:10.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of measurement equivalence of the Family Satisfaction with the End-of-Life Care (FAMCARE): Tests of differential item functioning between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White caregivers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2020

Jeanne A. Teresi ,
Katja Ocepek-Welikson ,
Mildred Ramirez Open the ORCID record for Mildred Ramirez [Opens in a new window] ,
Marjorie Kleinman ,
Katherine Ornstein ,
Albert Siu  and
Jose Luchsinger
Jeanne A. Teresi
Affiliation:
Research Division, Hebrew Home at Riverdale, Riverdale, New York, NY Measurement and Data Management Core, Mount Sinai Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, and Analytic Core, Columbia University Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center for Minority Aging Research, New York, NY Columbia University Stroud Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY
Katja Ocepek-Welikson
Affiliation:
Research Division, Hebrew Home at Riverdale, Riverdale, New York, NY
Mildred Ramirez*
Affiliation:
Research Division, Hebrew Home at Riverdale, Riverdale, New York, NY Measurement and Data Management Core, Mount Sinai Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, and Analytic Core, Columbia University Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center for Minority Aging Research, New York, NY Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY
Marjorie Kleinman
Affiliation:
Columbia University Stroud Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY
Katherine Ornstein
Affiliation:
Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Institute for Translational Epidemiology Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
Albert Siu
Affiliation:
Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, General Internal Medicine, Health Evidence and Policy, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
Jose Luchsinger
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, PH9 Center, New York, NY10032
*
Author for correspondence: Mildred Ramirez, Research Division, Hebrew Home at Riverdale in RiverSpring Health, 5901 Palisade Avenue, Riverdale, New York, NY10471, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Although the psychometric properties of the Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care measure have been examined in diverse settings internationally; little evidence exists regarding measurement equivalence in Hispanic caregivers. The aim was to examine the psychometric properties of a short-form of the FAMCARE in Hispanics using latent variable models and place information on differential item functioning (DIF) in an existing family satisfaction item bank.

Method

The graded form of the item response theory model was used for the analyses of DIF; sensitivity analyses were performed using a latent variable logistic regression approach. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to examine dimensionality were performed within each subgroup studied. The sample included 1,834 respondents: 317 Hispanic and 1,517 non-Hispanic White caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease and cancer, respectively.

Results

There was strong support for essential unidimensionality for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic White subgroups. Modest DIF of low magnitude and impact was observed; flagged items related to information sharing. Only 1 item was flagged with significant DIF by both a primary and sensitivity method after correction for multiple comparisons: “The way the family is included in treatment and care decisions.” This item was more discriminating for the non-Hispanic, White responders than for the Hispanic subsample, and was also a more severe indicator at some levels of the trait; the Hispanic respondents located at higher satisfaction levels were more likely than White non-Hispanic respondents to report satisfaction.

Significance of results

The magnitude of DIF was below the salience threshold for all items. Evidence supported the measurement equivalence and use for cross-cultural comparisons of the short-form FAMCARE among Hispanic caregivers, including those interviewed in Spanish.

Keywords

Differential item functioningEthnic diversityFamily satisfaction with end-of-life careItem response theoryPalliative care
Type
Original Article
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 544 - 556
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aoun, S, Bird, S, Kristjanson, LJ, et al. (2010) Reliability testing of the FAMCARE-2 scale: Measuring family care satisfaction with palliative care. Palliative Medicine 24(7), 674–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asparouhov, T and Muthén, B (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y and Hochberg, Y (1995) Controlling for the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57, 289–300. doi:10.2307/2346101Google Scholar
Bentler, PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonferroni, CE (1936) Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze 8, 3–62.Google Scholar
Cai, L, Thissen, D and du Toit, SHC (2011) IRTPRO: Flexible, Multidimensional, Multiple Categorical IRT Modeling (Computer Software). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
Chen, WH and Thissen, D (1997) Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 22, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, SW, Gibbons, LE and Crane, PK (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, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I (2000) Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15, 137–152.Google Scholar
Cook, KF, Kallen, MA and Amtmann, D (2009) Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research 18, 447–460. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Angelo, D, Punziano, AC, Mastroianni, C, et al. (2017) Translation and testing of the Italian version of FAMCARE-2: Measuring family caregivers’ satisfaction with palliative care. Journal of Family Nursing 23(2), 252–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleer, PF (1993) A Monte Carlo Assessment of a New Measure of Item and Test Bias (Dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-04B, 2266). Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Flowers, CP, Oshima, TC and Raju, NS (1999) A description and demonstration of the polytomous DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement 23, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, CR, Anderson, KO, Baker, TA, et al. (2003) The unequal burden of pain: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in pain. Pain Medicine 4(3), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambleton, RK, Swaminathan, H and Roger, HJ (1991) Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Hwang, SS, Chang, VT, Alejandro, Y, et al. (2003) Caregiver unmet needs, burden, and satisfaction in symptomatic advanced care patients at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Palliative & Supportive Care 1, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, E and Tadaka, E (2018) Development of a Japanese version of the short-form FAMCARE scale for family caregivers of terminal cancer patients at home in Japan. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 55(1), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S, Cohen, AS, Alagoz, C, et al. (2007) DIF detection and effect size measures for polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement 44, 93–116. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00029.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, M and Teresi, JA (2016) Differential item functioning magnitude and impact measures from item response theory models. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling 58(1), 79–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Kristjanson, LJ (1986) Indicators of quality of palliative care from a family perspective. Journal of Palliative Care 1(2), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristjanson, LJ (1989) Quality of terminal care: Salient indicators identified by families. Journal of Palliative Care 5(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristjanson, LJ (1993) Validity and reliability testing of the FAMCARE Scale: Measuring family satisfaction with advanced cancer care. Social Science & Medicine 36(5), 693–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ljungberg, AK, Fossum, B, First, CJ, et al. (2015) Translation and cultural adaptation of research instruments – Guidelines and challenges: An example in FAMCARE-2 for use in Sweden. Informatics for Health and Social Care 40, 67–78. doi:10.3109/17538157.2013.87211CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, C, Burman, D, Rodin, G, et al. (2009) Measuring patient satisfaction in oncology palliative care: Psychometric properties of the FAMCARE-patient scale. Quality of Life Research 18, 747–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, FM (1980) Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lord, FM and Novick, MR (1968) Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
McDonald, RP (1999) Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McHorney, C and Fleishman, J (2006) Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures: Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Medical Care 44(Suppl 3), S205–S210. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000245451.67862.57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morales, LS, Flowers, C, Gutierrez, P, et al. (2006) Item and scale differential functioning of the Mini-Mental State Exam assessed using the Differential Item and Test Functioning (DFIT) framework. Medical Care 44(11), S143–S151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, LK and Muthén, BO (2011) M-PLUS Users Guide, 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén, pp. 1998–2011.Google Scholar
Orlando-Edelen, M, Thissen, D, Teresi, JA, et al. (2006) Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: Applications to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Medical Care 44, S134–S142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornstein, KA, Teresi, JA, Ocepek Welikson, K, et al. (2015) Use of an item bank to develop two short-form FAMCARE scales to measure family satisfaction with care in the setting of serious illness. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 49(5), 894–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raju, NS, van der Linden, WJ and Fleer, PF (1995) IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement 19, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Reise, SP (2012) The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research 47, 667–696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reise, SP, Moore, TM and Haviland, MG (2010) Bi-factor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment 92, 544–559. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.496477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, KL, Bayliss, NK, Jaffe, E, et al. (2010) Factor analysis and internal consistency evaluation of the FAMCARE Scale for use in the long-term care setting. Palliative & Supportive Care 8(2), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samejima, F (1969) Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores (Psychometrika Monograph; Supplement 17). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika 74, 107–120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teresi, JA, Kleinman, M and Ocepek-Welikson, K (2000) Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: Application to cognitive assessment measures. Statistics in Medicine 19, 1651–1683.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teresi, J, Ocepek-Welikson, K, Kleinman, M, et al. (2007) Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): Applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Quality of Life Research 16, 43–68. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9186-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teresi, JA, Ornstein, K, Ramirez, M, et al. (2014) Performance of the Family Satisfaction with the End-of-Life Care (FAMCARE) measure in an ethnically diverse cohort: Psychometric analyses using item response theory. Supportive Care in Cancer 22, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teresi, JA, Ocepek-Welikson, K, Ramirez, M, et al. (2015) Evaluation of measurement equivalence of the Family Satisfaction with the End-of-Life Care in an ethnically diverse cohort: Tests of differential item functioning. Palliative Medicine 29, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teresi, JA, Ocepek-Welikson, K, Ramirez, M, et al. (2019) Psychometric properties of a Spanish-language version of a short-form FAMCARE: Applications to caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Journal of Family Nursing 25(4), 557–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thissen, D, Steinberg, L and Wainer, H (1993) Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In Holland, PW and Wainer, H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.Google Scholar
Thissen, D, Steinberg, L and Kuang, D (2002) Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false discovery rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 27, 77–83. doi:10.3102/10769986027001077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, LR and Lewis, C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38, 1–10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, H (1993) Model-based standardization measurement of an item's differential impact. In Holland, PW and Wainer, H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc., pp. 123–135.Google Scholar
Wang, W-C, Shih, C-L and Sun, G-W (2012) The DIF-free-then-DIF strategy for the assessment of differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement 72, 687–708. doi:10.1177/0013164411426157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, CM (2009) Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement 33, 42–57. doi:10.1177/0146621607314044CrossRefGoogle Scholar