Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 2699–2707 | Cite as

Negligible impact of differential item functioning between Black and White dialysis patients on the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item short form survey (KDQOLTM-36)

  • John D. Peipert
  • Peter Bentler
  • Kristi Klicko
  • Ron D. Hays
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Black dialysis patients report better health-related quality of life (HRQOL) than White patients, which may be explained if Black and White patients respond systematically differently to HRQOL survey items.

Methods

We examined differential item functioning (DIF) of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item (KDQOLTM-36) Burden of Kidney Disease, Symptoms and Problems with Kidney Disease, and Effects of Kidney Disease scales between Black (n = 18,404) and White (n = 21,439) dialysis patients. We fit multiple group confirmatory factor analysis models with increasing invariance: a Configural model (invariant factor structure), a Metric model (invariant factor loadings), and a Scalar model (invariant intercepts). Criteria for invariance included non-significant χ2 tests, > 0.002 difference in the models’ CFI, and > 0.015 difference in RMSEA and SRMR. Next, starting with a fully invariant model, we freed loadings and intercepts item-by-item to determine if DIF impacted estimated KDQOLTM-36 scale means.

Results

ΔCFI was 0.006 between the metric and scalar models but was reduced to 0.001 when we freed intercepts for the burdens and symptoms and problems of kidney disease scales. In comparison to standardized means of 0 in the White group, those for the Black group on the Burdens, Symptoms and Problems, and Effects of Kidney Disease scales were 0.218, 0.061, and 0.161, respectively. When loadings and thresholds were released sequentially, differences in means between models ranged between 0.001 and 0.048.

Conclusion

Despite some DIF, impacts on KDQOLTM-36 responses appear to be minimal. We conclude that the KDQOLTM-36 is appropriate to make substantive comparisons of HRQOL between Black and White dialysis patients.

Keywords

Health-related quality of life KDQOL-36 Measurement invariance Differential item functioning 

Abbreviations

AV

Arteriovenous

CFA

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI

Comparative fit index

CMS

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

DIF

Differential item functioning

DOPPS

Dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study

ESRD

End-stage renal disease

HRQOL

Health-related quality of life

KDCS

Kidney Disease Component Summary

KDQOL-36

Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item survey

KDQOL-SF

KDQOL-short form

MCS

Mental Component Summary

PCS

Physical Component Summary

PD

Peritoneal dialysis

RMSEA

Root mean squared error of approximation

SRMR

Standardized root mean square residual

US

United States

WLSMV

Weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dori Schatell and Ryne Estabrook for their insightful suggestions on this manuscript. There was no direct financial support for the research reported in this manuscript.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    United States Renal Data System. (2017). 2017 USRDS annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hertz, R. P., Unger, A. N., Cornell, J. A., & Saunders, E. (2005). Racial disparities in hypertension prevalence, awareness, and management. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(18), 2098–2104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hays, R. D., Cunningham, W. E., Sherbourne, C. D., Wilson, I. B., Wu, A. W., Cleary, P. D., McCaffrey, D. F., Fleishman, J. A., Crystal, S., Collins, R., Eggan, F., Shapiro, M. F., & Bozzette, S. A. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in the United States: Results from the HIV cost and services utilization study. The American Journal of Medicine, 108(9), 714–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sledge, R. (2010). KDQOL-36 and the interdisciplinary team. Nephrology News & Issues, 24(7), 36–38.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peipert, J. D., Bentler, P. M., Klicko, K., & Hays, R. D. (2017). Psychometric properties of the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short-form survey (KDQOL-36) in the United States. American Journal of Kidney Diseases.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.07.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hays, R. D., Kallich, J. D., Mapes, D. L., Coons, S. J., & Carter, W. B. (1994). Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) instrument. Quality of Life Research, 3(5), 329–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tell, G. S., Mittelmark, M. B., Hylander, B., Shumaker, S. A., Russell, G., & Burkart, J. M. (1995). Social support and health-related quality of life in black and white dialysis patients. ANNA Journal, 22(3), 301–308; discussion 309–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lopes, A. A., Bragg-Gresham, J. L., Satayathum, S., McCullough, K., Pifer, T., Goodkin, D. A., Mapes, D. L., Young, E. W., Wolfe, R. A., Held, P. J., & Port, F. K. (2003). Health-related quality of life and associated outcomes among hemodialysis patients of different ethnicities in the United States: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 41(3), 605–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mapes, D. L., Bragg-Gresham, J. L., Bommer, J., Fukuhara, S., McKevitt, P., Wikstrom, B., & Lopes, A. A. (2004). Health-related quality of life in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 44(5 Suppl 2), 54–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu, H., & Estabrook, R. (2016). Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes. Psychometrika, 81(4), 1014–1045.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2010). Simple second order chi-square correction. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fischer, F., Gibbons, C., Coste, J., Valderas, J. M., Rose, M., & Leplege, A. (2018). Measurement invariance and general population reference values of the PROMIS Profile 29 in the UK, France, and Germany. Quality of Life Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1785-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2006). Robust chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Mplus.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saban, K. L., Bryant, F. B., Reda, D. J., Stroupe, K. T., & Hynes, D. M. (2010). Measurement invariance of the kidney disease and quality of life instrument (KDQOL-SF) across veterans and non-veterans. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8(1), 120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Unruh, M., Miskulin, D., Yan, G., Hays, R. D., Benz, R., Kusek, J. W., Meyer, K. B., & HEMO Study Group. (2004). Racial differences in health-related quality of life among hemodialysis patients. Kidney International, 65(4), 1482–1491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kutner, N. G., & Devins, G. M. (1998). A comparison of the quality of life reported by elderly whites and elderly blacks on dialysis. Geriatric Nephrology and Urology, 8(2), 77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John D. Peipert
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter Bentler
    • 4
  • Kristi Klicko
    • 5
  • Ron D. Hays
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Terasaki Research InstituteUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Psychology and StatisticsUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Medical Education Institute, Inc.MadisonUSA
  6. 6.Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations