The validity of subjective quality of life measures in psychotic patients with severe psychopathology and cognitive deficits: an item response model analysis
Subjective quality of life (SQOL) is an established patient-reported outcome in the evaluation of treatments for psychosis. The use of SQOL measures in the presence of psychiatric symptoms and cognitive deficits has been questioned. However, there is little evidence on whether items function differently as indicators of SQOL in psychotic patients with different levels of symptoms and deficits. Substantial differential item functioning (DIF) would, indeed, challenge the validity of established measures. We aimed to investigate the validity of a widely used measure of subjective quality of life (SQOL), i.e., the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile (LQOLP), in the presence of cognitive deficits and psychiatric symptoms in patients with severe and enduring psychosis.
We analysed SQOL ratings of 690 psychotic patients on the LQOLP using item response modelling to detect differential item functioning (DIF) attributable to psychiatric symptoms and cognitive deficits.
Patients with more severe general psychopathology were less likely to rate their ‘personal safety’ positively (OR .96, 95% CI .93–.99). More severely depressed patients were less likely to endorse positive ‘life as a whole’ (OR .93, 95% CI .89–.98) and ‘mental health’ (OR .93, 95% CI .91–.97) ratings. There was no DIF attributable to cognitive deficits.
The findings suggest that the validity of the LQOLP in psychotic patients may be impaired by DIF due to psychopathology, although the magnitude of effects is unlikely to be of clinical significance. The validity appears not to be compromised by cognitive deficits.
KeywordsQuality of life Patient-reported outcomes Psychosis Validity Differential item functioning Item response theory
This work was supported by a Research Training Fellowship funded by the National Institute of Health Research, UK, to U.R. The report is independent research and the views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.
- 1.Priebe, S., & Fakhoury, W. (2008). Quality of life. In K. Mueser & D. Jeste (Eds.), The clinical handbook of schizophrenia (pp. 581–591). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
- 3.Food, U. S., & Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Rockville, MD: US FDA.Google Scholar
- 4.Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Reininghaus, U., McCabe, R., Burns, T., Croudace, T., & Priebe, S. (2010). Measuring patients’ views: A bi-factor model of distinct patient-reported outcomes in psychosis. Psychological Medicine. doi: 10.1017/S0033291710000784.
- 7.UK Department of Health. (2008). High quality care for all. NHS next stage review final report. London, UK: Department of Health.Google Scholar
- 17.Priebe, S., Reininghaus, U., McCabe, R., Burns, T., Eklund, M., Hansson, L., et al. (2010). Factors influencing subjective quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders: A pooled analysis. Schizophrenia Research. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.12.020.
- 29.Teresi, J., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., Eimicke, J., Crane, P., Jones, R., et al. (2009). Analysis of differential item functioning in the depression item bank from the patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS): An item response theory approach. Psychological Science Quarterly, 51, 148–180.Google Scholar
- 30.Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 33.Gaite, L., Vazquez-Barquero, J., Arrizabalaga, A., Schene, A., Welcher, B., Thornicroft, G., et al. (2000). Quality of life in schizophrenia: Development, reliability and internal consistency of the Lancashire quality of life profile—European Version. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, s49–s54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Rose, M., Bjorner, J., Becker, J., Fries, J., & Ware, J. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 17–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Yang, F., Tommet, D., & Jones, R. (2009). Disparities in self-reported geriatric depressive symptoms due to socio-demographic differences: An extension of the bi-factor item response theory model for use in differential item functioning. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 1025–1035.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Andreasen, N. (1989). Scale for the assessment of negative symptoms (SANS). British Journal of Psychiatry, 7, 53–58.Google Scholar
- 43.Nelson, H., & Williams, J. (1991). The revised national adult reading test manual. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
- 45.Reitan, R. (1958). Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain dysfunction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.Google Scholar
- 46.Lezak, M. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 47.Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2010). Mplus version 5.2. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
- 51.Muthén, B. (1988). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 213–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 56.Akaike, H. (1987). Prediction and entropy. In A. Atkinson & S. Fienberg (Eds.), A celebration of statistics (pp. 1–24). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 57.Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 64.Vatne, S., & Bjorkly, S. (2008). Empirical evidence for using subjective quality of life as an outcome variable in clinical studies: A meta-analysis of correlates and predictors in persons with a major mental disorder living in the community. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 869–889.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.Bentall, R. (2003). Madness explained. Psychosis and nature. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- 70.Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahnemann, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- 71.Mokkink, L., Terwee, C., Knol, D., Stratford, P., Alonso, J., Patrick, D., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(22). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
- 72.US Department of Health, Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- 73.Fries, J., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: Using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Experimental Rheumatology, 23, s53–s57.Google Scholar