Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2105–2112 | Cite as

Understanding the impact of racial self-identification on perceptions of health-related quality of life: a multi-group analysis

  • Victoria M. Rizzo
  • Evelyn Kintner
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Multiple group analysis is used to determine whether the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) model developed by Wilson and Cleary (1995) is equivalent across racial categories. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, this study compares racial groups (African American vs. White; Hispanic vs. White) to determine whether they perceive HRQoL similarly.

Methods

This secondary data analysis of 2007 New York State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data (n = 6,103 cases) uses the multi-group analysis function in structural equation modeling to test for equivalency across the named ethnic/racial groups.

Results

The White subsample achieved good fit indices and produced significant estimates for all structural components of the hypothesized model. Noteworthy differences, however, were found for the African American and Hispanic samples. In both cases, the data failed to support the Wilson and Cleary model as operationalized. This was most pronounced in the Hispanic versus White comparison, where the findings suggest fundamental differences between the two groups at the basic concept measurement level.

Conclusions

The substantial discrepancies that the findings suggest for the subsamples call into question not only the structural integrity of the Wilson and Cleary model for minorities but also suggest that racial groups, particularly Hispanics, may perceive concepts of health-related quality of life differently than Whites.

Keywords

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) Wilson and Cleary Model Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Health disparities and HRQoL Racial self-identification and HRQoL Perceptions of HRQoL 

Notes

Ethical standards

This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at the University at Albany, State University of New York (Protocol # L90079) and Columbia University, Morningside Campus (IRB-AAAF3998). Both IRBs classified the study as exempt.

References

  1. 1.
    Bryne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilson, I., & Cleary, P. (1995). Linking critical variables with health-related quality of life: A conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rizzo V., & Kintner, E. (2012). The utility of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in testing quality of life research. Quality of Life Research. doi: 10.10071/s11136-012-0228-1.
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2008). Racial/ethnic disparities in self-rated health status among adults with and without disabilities—United States. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57(39), 1069–1073.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Key themes and highlights from the National Healthcare Disparities Report. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr06/highlights/nhdr06high.htm. Accessed April 17, 2012.
  6. 6.
    Tann, S. (2005). Implications for quality of life research in Latino populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 16(2), 136–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). BRFSS overview. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/surveydata/2007.htm. Accessed April 17, 2012.
  8. 8.
    Register, M. E., & Herman, J. (2006). A middle range theory for generative quality of life for the elderly. Advances in Nursing Science, 29(4), 340–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G., & Marchand, C. B. (2000). Consumer based quality of life assessment: A path model of perceived satisfaction. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vidrine, D., Amick, B., Gritz, E. R., et al. (2002). Assessing a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in a HIV/AIDS population. Quality of Life Research, 14, 923–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wettergren, L., Bjorkholm, M., Axdorph, U., et al. (2004). Determinants of health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Quality of Life Research, 13, 1369–1379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baker, S. R., Pankhurst, C. L., & Robinson, P. G. (2007). Testing relationships between clinical and non-clinical variables in xerostomia: A structural equation model of oral health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 16, 297–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heo, S., Moser, D. K., Riegel, B., et al. (2005). Testing a published model of health-related quality of life in heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 11(5), 372–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sousa, K. H., & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Putting Wilson and Cleary to the test: Analysis of a HRQoL conceptual model using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 15, 725–737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sousa, K. H., & Chen, F. F. (2002). A theoretical approach to measuring quality of life. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(1), 47–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sousa, K. H., & Williamson, A. (2003). Symptom status and health-related quality of life: Clinical relevance. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(6), 571–577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson, D. E., Holtzman, D., Bolen, J., Stanwyck, C. A., & Mack, K. A. (2001). Reliability and validity of measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Social and Prevent Medicine, 46(Suppl 1), S03–S42.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson, D. E., Powell-Griner, E., Town, M., & Kovar, M. G. (2003). A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1335–1341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centers for Disease Control. (2008). BRFSS data quality, validity, and reliability. Resource document. Centers for Disease Control: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/pubs/quality.htm Accessed August 29, 2008.
  20. 20.
    Andresen, E. M., Catlin, T. K., Wyrwich, K. W., & Jackson-Thompson, J. (2003). Retest reliability of surveillance questions on health related quality of life. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 57, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & B. G. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed., pp. 709–811). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keith, T. (2005). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Remington, P., Simoes, E., Brownson, R., & Siegel, P. (2003). The role of epidemiology in chronic disease prevention and health promotion programs. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 9(4), 258–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    North Carolina State University. Structural equation modeling: Statnotes. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/strur.htm. Accessed September 21, 2009.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.School of Social WelfareUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations