Cargando…

Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments

BACKGROUND: Self-report instruments are used to evaluate the effect of interventions. However, individuals adapt to adversity. This could result in individuals reporting higher levels of well-being than one would expect. It is possible to test for the influence of adapted preferences on instrument r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ubels, Jasper, Schlander, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10636898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37950250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02208-9
_version_ 1785133290744709120
author Ubels, Jasper
Schlander, Michael
author_facet Ubels, Jasper
Schlander, Michael
author_sort Ubels, Jasper
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Self-report instruments are used to evaluate the effect of interventions. However, individuals adapt to adversity. This could result in individuals reporting higher levels of well-being than one would expect. It is possible to test for the influence of adapted preferences on instrument responses using measurement invariance testing. This study conducts such a test with the Wellbeing Related option-Freedom (WeRFree) and ICECAP-A instruments. METHODS: A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to iteratively test four increasingly stringent types of measurement invariance: (1) configural invariance, (2) metric invariance, (3) scalar invariance, and (4) residual invariance. Data from the Multi Instrument Comparison study were divided into subsamples that reflect groups of participants that differ by age, gender, education, or health condition. Measurement invariance was assessed with (changes in) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) fit indices. RESULTS: For the WeRFree instrument, full measurement invariance could be established in the gender and education subsamples. Scalar invariance, but not residual invariance, was established in the health condition and age group subsamples. For the ICECAP-A, full measurement invariance could be established in the gender, education, and age group subsamples. Scalar invariance could be established in the health group subsample. CONCLUSIONS: This study tests the measurement invariance properties of the WeRFree and ICECAP-A instruments. The results indicate that these instruments were scalar invariant in all subsamples, which means that group means can be compared across different subpopulations. We suggest that measurement invariance of capability instruments should routinely be tested with a reference group that does not experience a disadvantage to study whether responses could be affected by adapted preferences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10636898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106368982023-11-11 Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments Ubels, Jasper Schlander, Michael Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Self-report instruments are used to evaluate the effect of interventions. However, individuals adapt to adversity. This could result in individuals reporting higher levels of well-being than one would expect. It is possible to test for the influence of adapted preferences on instrument responses using measurement invariance testing. This study conducts such a test with the Wellbeing Related option-Freedom (WeRFree) and ICECAP-A instruments. METHODS: A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to iteratively test four increasingly stringent types of measurement invariance: (1) configural invariance, (2) metric invariance, (3) scalar invariance, and (4) residual invariance. Data from the Multi Instrument Comparison study were divided into subsamples that reflect groups of participants that differ by age, gender, education, or health condition. Measurement invariance was assessed with (changes in) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) fit indices. RESULTS: For the WeRFree instrument, full measurement invariance could be established in the gender and education subsamples. Scalar invariance, but not residual invariance, was established in the health condition and age group subsamples. For the ICECAP-A, full measurement invariance could be established in the gender, education, and age group subsamples. Scalar invariance could be established in the health group subsample. CONCLUSIONS: This study tests the measurement invariance properties of the WeRFree and ICECAP-A instruments. The results indicate that these instruments were scalar invariant in all subsamples, which means that group means can be compared across different subpopulations. We suggest that measurement invariance of capability instruments should routinely be tested with a reference group that does not experience a disadvantage to study whether responses could be affected by adapted preferences. BioMed Central 2023-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10636898/ /pubmed/37950250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02208-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ubels, Jasper
Schlander, Michael
Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title_full Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title_fullStr Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title_full_unstemmed Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title_short Measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the ICECAP-A and WeRFree instruments
title_sort measurement invariance and adapted preferences: evidence for the icecap-a and werfree instruments
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10636898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37950250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02208-9
work_keys_str_mv AT ubelsjasper measurementinvarianceandadaptedpreferencesevidencefortheicecapaandwerfreeinstruments
AT schlandermichael measurementinvarianceandadaptedpreferencesevidencefortheicecapaandwerfreeinstruments