Cargando…

Re-evaluating a vision-related quality of life questionnaire with item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses

BACKGROUND: For the Low Vision Quality Of Life questionnaire (LVQOL) it is unknown whether the psychometric properties are satisfactory when an item response theory (IRT) perspective is considered. This study evaluates some essential psychometric properties of the LVQOL questionnaire in an IRT model...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Nispen, Ruth MA, Knol, Dirk L, Langelaan, Maaike, van Rens, Ger HMB
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21888648
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-125
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: For the Low Vision Quality Of Life questionnaire (LVQOL) it is unknown whether the psychometric properties are satisfactory when an item response theory (IRT) perspective is considered. This study evaluates some essential psychometric properties of the LVQOL questionnaire in an IRT model, and investigates differential item functioning (DIF). METHODS: Cross-sectional data were used from an observational study among visually-impaired patients (n = 296). Calibration was performed for every dimension of the LVQOL in the graded response model. Item goodness-of-fit was assessed with the S-X(2)-test. DIF was assessed on relevant background variables (i.e. age, gender, visual acuity, eye condition, rehabilitation type and administration type) with likelihood-ratio tests for DIF. The magnitude of DIF was interpreted by assessing the largest difference in expected scores between subgroups. Measurement precision was assessed by presenting test information curves; reliability with the index of subject separation. RESULTS: All items of the LVQOL dimensions fitted the model. There was significant DIF on several items. For two items the maximum difference between expected scores exceeded one point, and DIF was found on multiple relevant background variables. Item 1 'Vision in general' from the "Adjustment" dimension and item 24 'Using tools' from the "Reading and fine work" dimension were removed. Test information was highest for the "Reading and fine work" dimension. Indices for subject separation ranged from 0.83 to 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The items of the LVQOL showed satisfactory item fit to the graded response model; however, two items were removed because of DIF. The adapted LVQOL with 21 items is DIF-free and therefore seems highly appropriate for use in heterogeneous populations of visually impaired patients.