Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries
Developing valid and reliable instruments that can be used across countries is necessary. The present study aimed to test the comparability of quality of life scores across three European countries (Finland, Poland, and Spain).
Data from 9987 participants interviewed between 2011 and 2012 were employed, using nationally representative samples from the Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe project. The WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a 13-item test and was employed to assess the quality of life in the three considered countries. First of all, two models (a bifactor model and a two-correlated factor model) were proposed and tested in each country by means of confirmatory factor models. Second, measurement invariance across the three countries was tested using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for that model which showed the best fit. Finally, differences in latent mean scores across countries were analyzed.
The results indicated that the bifactor model showed more satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices than the two-correlated factor model and that the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a partially scalar invariant instrument (only two items do not meet scalar invariance). Quality of life scores were higher in Finland (considered as the reference category: mean = 0, SD = 1) than in Spain (mean = − 0.547, SD = 1.22) and Poland (mean = − 0.927, SD = 1.26).
Respondents from Finland, Poland, and Spain attribute the same meaning to the latent construct studied, and differences across countries can be due to actual differences in quality of life. According to the results, the comparability across the different considered samples is supported and the WHOQOL-AGE showed an adequate validity in terms of cross-country validation. Caution should be exercised with the two items which did not meet scalar invariance, as potential indicator of differential item functioning.
KeywordsQuality of life Measurement invariance Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis WHOQOL-AGE Bifactor model
The present research has been funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement Number 223071 (COURAGE in Europe), by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FIS research Grant Numbers PS09/00295 and PS09/01845, by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation’s ACI-Promociona (ACI2009-1010), and the Mental Health and Disability Instrument Library Platform (CIBERSAM). The study was also supported by the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III. D.S. is grateful to the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid for the doctoral fellowship (Reference No. FPI-UAM2015). F.J.A. is grateful to the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Grant PSI2013-44300-P). All authors gratefully acknowledge the input of Prof. Mick Power during the process of selecting the WHOQOL-AGE items.
- 1.World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 3.The WHOQOL Group. (1996). What quality of life? World Health Organization quality of life assessment. World Health Forum, 17(4), 354–356.Google Scholar
- 7.Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Leonardi, M., Chatterji, S., Koskinen, S., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Haro, J. M., Frisoni, G., et al. (2014). Determinants of health and disability in ageing population:the COURAGE in Europe project (Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe). Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21(3), 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.World Health Organization. (2013). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/.
- 18.Schweizer, K., & Schreiner, M. (2010). Avoiding the effect of item wording by means of bipolar instead of unipolar items: An application to social optimism. European Journal of Personality, 24(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
- 19.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 29.Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. MedicalCare, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94.Google Scholar
- 37.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 38.StataCorp (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
- 40.United Nations (2013). Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
- 45.Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 46.Xia, Y. (2016). Investigating the chi-square-based model-fit indexes for WLSMV and ULSMV estimators. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.Google Scholar