Research Methods · Measurement and Statistics

Latent variable mixture models to test for differential item functioning: a population-based analysis

Wu X, Sawatzky R, Hopman W, Mayo N, Sajobi TT, Liu J, Prior J, Papaioannou A, Josse RG, Towheed T, Davison KS, Lix LM

Published May 15, 2017 Health Qual Life Outcomes, 15(1), 102
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0674-0 PMID 28506313 PMC PMC5433241

Abstract

Background

Comparisons of population health status using self-report measures such as the SF-36 rest on the assumption that the measured items have a common interpretation across sub-groups. However, self-report measures may be sensitive to differential item functioning (DIF), which occurs when sub-groups with the same underlying health status have a different probability of item response. This study tested for DIF on the SF-36 physical functioning (PF) and mental health (MH) sub-scales in population-based data using latent variable mixture models (LVMMs).

Methods

Data were from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective national cohort study. LVMMs were applied to the ten PF and five MH SF-36 items. A standard two-parameter graded response model with one latent class was compared to multi-class LVMMs. Multivariable logistic regression models with pseudo-class random draws characterized the latent classes on demographic and health variables.

Results

The CaMos cohort consisted of 9423 respondents. A three-class LVMM fit the PF sub-scale, with class proportions of 0.59, 0.24, and 0.17. For the MH sub-scale, a two-class model fit the data, with class proportions of 0.69 and 0.31. For PF items, the probabilities of reporting greater limitations were consistently higher in classes 2 and 3 than class 1. For MH items, respondents in class 2 reported more health problems than in class 1. Differences in item thresholds and factor loadings between one-class and multi-class models were observed for both sub-scales. Demographic and health variables were associated with class membership.

Conclusions

This study revealed DIF in population-based SF-36 data; the results suggest that PF and MH sub-scale scores may not be comparable across sub-groups defined by demographic and health status variables, although effects were frequently small to moderate in size. Evaluation of DIF should be a routine step when analysing population-based self-report data to ensure valid comparisons amongst sub-groups.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Research Methods › Measurement and Statistics › Instrument Development and Validation
Xiuyun Wu, Richard Sawatzky, Wilma Hopman, Nancy Mayo, Tolulope T Sajobi, Juxin Liu, Jerilynn Prior, Alexandra Papaioannou, Robert G Josse, Tanveer Towheed, K Shawn Davison, Lisa M Lix
X Wu, Rick Sawatzky, Dick Sawatzky, Rich Sawatzky, R Sawatzky, W Hopman, N Mayo, T Sajobi, J Liu, J Prior, Alex Papaioannou, A Papaioannou, Bob Josse, Rob Josse, Bobby Josse, R Josse, T Towheed, L Lix
PMID 28506313 28506313 DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0674-0 10.1186/s12955-017-0674-0 Wu et al. 2017, Wu 2017