Department of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053923. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
Increasingly, medical research involves patients who complete outcomes in different languages. This occurs in countries with more than one common language, such as Canada (French/English) or the United States (Spanish/English), as well as in international multi-centre collaborations, which are utilized frequently in rare diseases such as systemic sclerosis (SSc). In order to pool or compare outcomes, instruments should be measurement equivalent (invariant) across cultural or linguistic groups. This study provides an example of how to assess cross-language measurement equivalence by comparing the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale between English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients.
The CES-D was completed by 922 English-speaking Canadian and 213 Dutch SSc patients. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure in both samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess the amount of differential item functioning (DIF).
A two-factor model (positive and negative affect) showed excellent fit in both samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for 3 of 20 items on the CES-D. The English-speaking Canadian sample endorsed more feeling-related symptoms, whereas the Dutch sample endorsed more somatic/retarded activity symptoms. The overall estimate in depression scores between English and Dutch was not influenced substantively by DIF.
CES-D scores from English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients can be compared and pooled without concern that measurement differences may substantively influence results. The importance of assessing cross-language measurement equivalence in rheumatology studies prior to pooling outcomes obtained in different languages should be emphasized.
越来越多的医学研究涉及用不同语言完成结果的患者。这种情况不仅出现在存在多种常用语言的国家(如加拿大的法语/英语或美国的西班牙语/英语),也出现在国际多中心合作中,这种合作在罕见疾病(如系统性硬化症)中经常使用。为了汇集或比较结果,应使工具在文化或语言群体之间具有测量等效性(不变性)。本研究通过比较英语加拿大和荷兰 SSc 患者的流行病学研究抑郁量表(CES-D),提供了评估跨语言测量等效性的示例。
922 名讲英语的加拿大和 213 名荷兰 SSc 患者完成了 CES-D。验证性因素分析(CFA)用于评估两个样本中的因子结构。多指标多原因(MIMIC)模型用于评估差异项目功能(DIF)的数量。
在两个样本中,双因素模型(积极和消极影响)表现出良好的拟合。在 CES-D 的 20 个项目中,有 3 个项目存在具有统计学意义但幅度较小的 DIF。讲英语的加拿大样本更倾向于与感觉相关的症状,而荷兰样本更倾向于与躯体/迟缓活动相关的症状。英语和荷兰之间的抑郁评分的总体估计不受 DIF 的实质性影响。
来自英语加拿大和荷兰 SSc 患者的 CES-D 评分可以进行比较和汇总,而不必担心测量差异可能会实质性影响结果。在汇集不同语言获得的结果之前,应强调在风湿病研究中评估跨语言测量等效性的重要性。