Differential Item Functioning in the WHODAS 2.0 Scale in Schizophrenia: An Application of the Rasch Trees Method Based on Demographic and Clinical Covariates

Abstract

Identifying disability score differences in people with schizophrenia according to sociodemographic and clinical variables can help design better rehabilitation or care programs, but in order to compare the scores, it is necessary to confirm the measurement invariance. This study analyses differential item functioning (DIF) in the WHODAS 2.0 (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule) by applying two procedures based on Rasch trees (TREE-PCM and PCM-IFT). A total of 352 patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder aged between 18 and 55 years took part. Sociodemographic (gender, age, marital status, and education) and clinical (depressive symptomatology, and presence of positive and negative symptoms) covariates were analysed in each of the WHODAS 2.0 domains. The TREE-PCM did not detect DIF, while with PCM-IFT an item with DIF was detected for the age variable. Although the findings suggest that only one item presents DIF, this refers to important issues when assessing functioning in patients with schizophrenia and should be reviewed.

Keywords

DIF WHODAS 2.0 Schizophrenia Rasch trees method TREE-PCM PCM-IFT

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

R. J.

M. L.

Wilson

(2012). The Rasch rating model and the disordered threshold controversy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 547-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411432166

Adegbaju

D. A.

Olagunju

A. T.

Uwakwe

(2013). A comparative analysis of disability in individuals with bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia in a sub-Saharan African mental health hospital: Towards evidence-guided rehabilitation intervention. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(9), 1405-1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0654-6

Addington

Schissel

(1990). A depression rating scale for schizophrenics. Schizophrenia Research, 3(4), 247-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-9964(90)90005-r

Aguocha

Uwakwe

Olose

Amadi

Onyeama

Duru

(2018). Clinical implication of smoking among patients with schizophrenia at a tertiary institution in south east Nigeria. African Health Science, 18(1), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v18i1.14

Akinsulore

Mapayi

B. M.

Aloba

O. O.

Oloniniyi

Fatoye

F. O.

Makanjoula

R. O. A.

(2015). Disability assessment as an outcome measure: A comparative study of Nigerian outpatients with schizophrenia and healthy control. Annals of General Psychiatry, 14, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-015-0079-6

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders–Four Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association.

Bagby

R. M.

Ryder

A. G.

Schuller

D. R.

Marshall

M. B.

(2004). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Has the gold standard become a lead weight? American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(12), 2163-2177. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163

Barrios

Guilera

Hidalgo

M. D.

Cheung

E. C. F.

Chan

R. C. K.

Gómez-Benito

(2019). The most commonly used instruments in research on functioning in schizophrenia. What are they measuring? European Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000386

Berger

(2019). DIFtree: Item focused trees for the identification of items in differential item functioning (R package version 3.1.4) [Computer software]. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DIFtree

10.

Bollmann

Berger

Tutz

(2018). Item-focused trees for the detection of differential item functioning in partial credit models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 781-804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417722179

11.

Chen

Llou

T.-H.

Miao

N.-F.

Chang

K.-H.

Yen

C.-F.

Liao

H.-F.

Chi

W. C.

Chou

K.-R.

(2019). Using World Health Organization disability assessment Schedule 2.0 in people with schizophrenia: A 4-year follow-up. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 270(3), 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-01000-5

12.

Chen

Y. F.

Jiao

(2014). Exploring the utility of background and cognitive variables in explaining latent differential item functioning: An example of PISA 2009 reading assessment. Educational Assessment, 19(2), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.903650

13.

Cohen

A. S.

Bolt

D. M.

(2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00007

14.

Dan

Kumar

Avasthi

Grover

(2011). A comparative study on quality of life of patients of schizophrenia with and without depression. Psychiatry Research, 189(2), 185-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.017

15.

Ertugrul

Ulug

(2004). Perception of stigma among patients with schizophrenia. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(1), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-004-0697-9

16.

Galindo-Garre

Hidalgo

M. D.

Guilera

Pino

Rojo

J. E.

Gómez-Benito

(2015). Modeling the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II using non-parametric item response models. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 24(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1462

17.

Grover

Sahoo

Dua

Chakrabarti

Avasthi

(2017). Scales for assessment of depression in schizophrenia: Factor analysis of Calgary Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Psychiatry Research, 252(June), 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.03.018

18.

Guilera

Gómez-Benito

Pino

Rojo

J. E.

Cuesta

M. J.

Martínez-Arán

Safont

Tabarés-Seisdedos

Vieta

Bernardo

Crespo-Facorro

Franco

Rejas

(2012). Utility of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 138(2-3), 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2012.03.031

19.

Hamilton

(1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 23(1), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56

20.

Holland

P. W.

Thayer

D. T.

(1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Wainer

Braun

H. I.

(Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

Ivanova

Khan

Liharska

Reznik

Kuzmin

Kushnir

Agarkov

Bokhan

Pogorelova

Khomenko

Chernysheva

Morozova

Rupchev

Lepilkina

Ozornin

Ozornina

Govorin

Malakhova

Hmara

. . . Opler

L. A.

(2018). Validation of the Russian version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-Ru) and normative data. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 15(9-10), 32-48.

22.

Kay

S. R.

Fiszbein

Opler

L. A.

(1987). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13(2), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/13.2.261

23.

Kimber

Rehm

Ferro

M. A.

(2015). Measurement invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 in a population-based sample of youth. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142385

24.

Kirchberger

Braitmayer

Coenen

Oberhauser

Meisinger

(2014). Feasibility and psychometric properties of the German 12-item WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in a population-based sample of patients with myocardial infraction from the MONICA/KORA myocardial infraction registry. Population Health Metrics, 12(1), Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-014-0027-8

25.

Komboz

Strobl

Zeileis

(2018). Tree-based global model tests for polytomous Rasch model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(1), 128-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416664394

26.

Lako

I. M.

Bruggeman

Knegtering

Wiersma

Shoevers

R. A.

Slooff

C. J.

Taxis

(2012). A systematic review of instruments to measure depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(2012), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.10.014

27.

Linacre

J. M.

(1999a). Category disordering (disordered categories) vs. threshold disordering (disordered thresholds). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 13(1), 675. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt131a.htm

28.

Linacre

J. M.

(1999b). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103-122.

29.

Linacre

J. M.

(2021). Winsteps® Rasch-Model Computer Programs: User’s guide. Winsteps.com.

30.

Linacre

J. M.

Wright

B. D.

(1987). Item bias: Mantel Haenszel and the Rasch model. Psychometric Laboratory, Department of Education, University of Chicago. https://www.rasch.org/memo39.pdf

31.

Linden

Scheel

Rettig

(2007). Validation of the factorial structure of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in use by untrained psychiatrists in routine care. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 11(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651500600884419

32.

Lord

F. M.

(1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.

33.

Magis

Béland

Tuerlinckx

De Boeck

(2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 847-862. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.847

34.

McKibbin

Patterson

Jeste

D. V.

(2004). Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: Results from the WHODAS-II. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(6), 405-413. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000130133.32276.83

35.

Müller

M. J.

Müller

K. M.

Fellgiebel

(2006). Detection of depression in acute schizophrenia: Sensitivity and specificity of 2 standard observer rating scales. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(6), 387-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370605100609

36.

Nuño

Barrios

Rojo

Gómez-Benito

Guilera

(2018). Validation of the ICF core sets for schizophrenia from the perspective of psychiatrists: An international Delphi study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 103(August), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.05.012

37.

Olagunju

A. T.

Adegbaju

D. A.

Uwakwe

(2016). Disability among attendees with schizophrenia in a Nigerian hospital: Further evidence for integrated rehabilitative treatment designs. Mental Illness, 8(2), 6647. https://doi.org/10.4081/mi.2016.6647

38.

Park

Lee

D.-K.

Lee

Kim

C.-E.

Ryu

(2019). Functional disabilities evaluated using World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 in patients with chronic schizophrenia and its related factors. Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatry Association, 58(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.4306/jknpa.2019.58.1.47

39.

Peralta-Martín

Cuesta-Zorita

M. J.

(1994). Validación de la escala de los síndromes positivos y negativos (PANSS) en una muestra de esquizofrénicos [The validation of the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) in a sample of schizophrenics]. Actas Luso Españolas de Neurología Psiquiatría y Ciencias Afines, 22(4), 171-177.

40.

R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/

41.

Ramos-Brieva

Cordero Villafáfila

(1986). Validación de la versión castellana de la escala Hamilton para la depresión [The validation of the Spanish version of the Hamilton rating scale for depression]. Actas Luso Españolas de Neurología Psiquiatría y Ciencias Afines, 14(4), 324-334.

42.

Santor

D. A.

Ascher-Svanum

Lidenmayer

J.-P.

Obenchain

R. L.

(2007). Item response analysis of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. BMC Psychiatry, 7, Article 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-7-66

43.

Sedano-Capdevila

Barrigón

M. L.

Delgado-Gomez

Barahona

Aroca

Peñuelas-Calvo

Miguelez-Fernandez

Rodríguez-Jover

Amodeo-Escribano

González-Granado

Baca-García

(2018). WHODAS 2.0 as a measure of severity of illness: Results of a FLDA Analysis. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2018, Article 7353624. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7353624

44.

Sjonnense

Bulloch

A. G. M.

Williams

Lavorato

Patten

S. B.

(2016). Characterization of disability in Canadians with mental disorders using an abbreviated version of a DSM-5 emerging measure: The 12-item WHO disability assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(4), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716632514

45.

Strassnig

Kotov

Fochtmann

Kalin

Bromet

E. J.

Harvey

P. D.

(2018). Associations of independent living and labor force participation with impairment indicators in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder at 20-year follow-up. Schizophrenia Research, 197(July), 150-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.02.009

46.

Strobl

Kopf

Zeileis

(2010). A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the Rasch model (Technical Report No. 92). Department of Statistics, University of Munich. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/73503/1/74479868X.pdf

47.

Strobl

Kopf

Zeileis

(2015). Rasch trees: A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 80(2), 289-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-013-9388-3

48.

Swaminathan

Rogers

H. J.

(1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00754.x

49.

Thissen

Steinberg

Wainer

(1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In Holland

P. W.

Wainer

(Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

50.

Tompke

B. K.

Tang

Oltean

I. I.

Buchan

M. C.

Reaume

S. V.

Ferro

M. A.

(2020). Measurement Invariance of the WHODAS 2.0 across youth with and without physical or mental conditions. Assessment, 27(7), 1490-1501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118816435

51.

Tutz

Berger

(2016). Item-focussed trees for the identification of items in differential item functioning. Psychometrika, 81(3), 727-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9488-3

52.

Üstün

T. B.

Kostanjsek

Chatterji

Rehm

(2010). Measuring health and disability for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule: WHODAS 2.0. WHO Press.

53.

Vázquez-Baquero

J. L.

Herrera Castañedo

Vázquez Bourgón

Gaite Pindado

(2006). Cuestionario para la evaluación de la discapacidad de la Organización Mundial de la Salud: Versión española del World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II, WHO-DAS II [The World Health Organization questionnaire in evaluating disabilities: Spanish version of the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule II, WHO-DAS II]. Subdirección General de Información Administrativa y Publicaciones Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales [General Subdirectorate for Administrative Information and Publications, Ministry of Work and Social Affairs]. https://biadmin.cibersam.es/Intranet/Ficheros/GetFichero.aspx?FileName=449_6f9f03b4-ffa5-4327-a4e5-4e5ed73c2c27.pdf

54.

Wetzel

Carstensen

C. H.

(2014). Reversed threshold in partial credit models: A reason for collapsing categories? Assessment, 21(6), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114530775

55.

World Health Organization. (2000). World Health Organization: Disability assessment schedule II (WHO-DAS II). WHO Press.

56.

Zeileis

Strobl

Wickelmaier

Komboz

Kopf

(2018). Psychotree: Recursive partitioning based on psychometric models (R package version 0.15-2) [Computer software]. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychotree

57.

Zhou

Liu

Xiao

Chen

Khoshnood

Zheng

(2020). Proxy reliability of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule II among adult patients with mental disorders. Quality of Life Research, 29(8), 2219-2229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02474-w

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB