Satisfactory cross-cultural validity of the ACTG symptom distress module in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-naive patients

Abstract

Background Multinational clinical trials commonly include different language versions of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments without considering the question of their cross-cultural validity. The inclusion of a PRO instrument, the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group Symptom Distress Module (SDM), in an multinational clinical trial in HIV-1 antiretroviral-naive patients offered an opportunity to explore the methods to assess cross-cultural validity of PRO instruments in the context of clinical trials.

Purpose To assess the cross-cultural validity of the SDM across seven cultural groups in the setting of a multinational HIV clinical trial.

Methods Twenty-five language versions of the SDM were included in a Phase IIb/III trial comparing maraviroc with efavirenz (each in combination with zidovudine/ lamivudine) conducted in 12 countries to assess symptoms perceived by HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-naive patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) detection and the STATIS method were combined in a pragmatic approach to assess the cross-cultural validity of the SDM using pre-antiretroviral treatment data from 759 patients.

Results Statistically significant DIF between cultural groups was observed for four items: fatigue; fevers; anxiety; and headache. However, examination of these items by linguists did not lead to meaningful explanations for the statistical differences. With the STATIS approach, the Bantu and European Germanic groups were the furthest from the Occidental English group.

Limitations The assessment of cross-cultural validity had to be performed on some very small samples and on data aggregated by cultural groups, which suggests the need for a cautious interpretation of the results.

Conclusions Given the heterogeneity of cultures considered, the absence of meaningful explanations for statistically significant differences between cultural groups supports the cross-cultural validity of the SDM versions included in this trial. Thus, this study demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct assessment of crosscultural validity of PRO instruments using data collected in the setting of multinational clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 574—584. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chassany O. , Sagnier P. , Marquis P. et al. Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life: a european guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J 2002; 36: 209-38.

Fairclough DL Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. CRC Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL, 2002.

Patrick DL , Burke LB , Powers JH et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007; 10: S125-S137.

Staquet MJ , Hays RD , Fayers PM Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.

Acquadro C. , Conway K. , Giroudet C. , Mear I. Linguistic Validation Manual for Patient-reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments . Mapi Research Institute, Lyon , 2004.

Behling O. , Law KS Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments : Problems and Solutions. Sage Publications Inc. , Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.

Herdman M. , Fox-Rushby J. , Badia X. ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 237-47.

Johnson TP Methods and frameworks for crosscultural measurement. Med Care 2006; 44: S17-S20.

Herdman M. , Fox-Rushby J. , Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res 1998 ; 7: 323-35.

10.

van de Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997.

11.

Teresi JA Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Med Care 2006; 44: S39-S49.

12.

Tauler E. , Vilagut G. , Grau G. et al. The spanish version of the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (PAQLQ): metric characteristics and equivalence with the original version . Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 81-91.

13.

Keller SD , Ware Jr JE , Bentler PM et al. Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1179-88.

14.

Snoek FJ , Pouwer F. , Welch GW , Polonsky WH Diabetes-related emotional distress in Dutch and U.S. diabetic patients: cross-cultural validity of the problem areas in diabetes scale. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 1305-9.

15.

Bjorner JB , Kreiner S. , Ware JE et al. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1189-202.

16.

Scott NW , Fayers PM , Aaronson NK et al. The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 115-29.

17.

Detels R. , Munoz A. , McFarlane G. et al. Effectiveness of potent antiretroviral therapy on time to AIDS and death in men with known HIV infection duration. Multicenter AIDS cohort study investigators. JAMA 1998; 280: 1497-503.

18.

Palella Jr FJ , Delaney KM , Moorman AC et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 853-60.

19.

Walensky RP , Paltiel AD , Losina E. et al. The survival benefits of AIDS treatment in the United States. J Infect Dis 2006; 194: 11-9.

20.

Lin MK , Wu AW , Revicki DA Incorporating quality of life measures in HIV clinical trials. HIV Clin Trials 2002; 3: 202-18.

21.

Clayson DJ , Wild DJ , Quarterman P. et al. A comparative review of health-related quality-of-life measures for use in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. PharmacoEconomics 2006; 24: 751-65.

22.

Johnson MO , Stallworth T. , Neilands TB The drugs or the disease? Causal attributions of symptoms held by HIV-positive adults on HAART. AIDS Behav 2003 ; 7: 109-17.

23.

Portillo CJ , Holzemer WL , Chou FY HIV symptoms. Annu Rev Nurs Res 2007; 25: 259-91.

24.

Justice AC , Holmes W. , Gifford AL et al. Development and validation of a self-completed HIV symptom index . J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: S77-S90.

25.

Mear I. , d’Uva F. , Wu AW , Mollon P. Use of the symptom distress module in an international study [Abstract] . Value Health 2005; 8: 314.

26.

Holland PW , Wainer H. (eds). Differential Item Functioning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , New Jersey, 1993.

27.

Zumbo BD A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Directorate of Human Ressources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, Ottawa, 1999.

28.

Scott NW , Fayers PM , Bottomley A. et al. Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Qual Life Res 2006 ; 15: 1103-15.

29.

Petersen MA , Groenvold M. , Bjorner JB et al. Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire . Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 373-85.

30.

Teresi JA Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications . Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care 2006; 44: S152-S170.

31.

Gelin MN , Zumbo BD Diffferential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: an illustration with the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale. Educ Psychol Meas 2003; 63: 65-74.

32.

Jodoin MG , Gierl MJ Evaluating Type I error and power rates unsing an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Appl Meas Educ 2001; 14: 329-49.

33.

Hambleton RK Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care 2006; 44: S182-S188.

34.

Lavit C. , Escoufier Y. , Sabatier R. , Traissac P. The ACT (STATIS method). Comput Stat Data Anal 1994; 18: 97-119.

35.

Gregorich SE Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care 2006; 44: S78-S94.

36.

Byrne BM , Stewart SM , Kennard BD , Lee PWH.

The beck depression inventory-II: Testing for measurement equivalence and factor mean differences across Honk-Kong and

American adolescents. Int J Test 2007; 7: 293-309.

37.

Fidalgo AM , Ferreres D. , Muniz J. Utility of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting differential item functioning in small samples. Educ Psychol Meas 2004; 64: 925-36.

38.

Hidalgo MD , Lopez-Pina JA Differential item functioning detection and effect size: a comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 2004; 64: 903-15.

39.

French BF , Maller SJ Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educ Psychol Meas 2007; 67: 373-93.

40.

Wilson IB , Cleary PD Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273: 59-65.

41.

Roznowski M. , Reith J.

Examining the measurement quality of tests containing differentially functioning items: do biased items results in poor measurement?

Educ Psychol Meas 1999 ; 59: 248-69.