Background: In general, measurement qualities of cross-culturally adapted quality of life (QOL) measures are altered in many aspects, although versions of them are well-validated measures. The latent trait and measurement qualities of the QOL measures for cancer-related samples should be considered when developing cross-culturally adapted measures. Objects: To investigate the latent trait of the translated into Korean World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) administered to different cancer survivors who had palliative rehabilitation care service (PRCS). Methods: A cross-sectional study with 139 cancer survivors who had an experience of cancer survivorship with PRCS were conducted with a two-step analytic procedure including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to confirm the latent trait and Rasch rating scale modeling to investigate the measurement qualities of the cross-culturally adapted WHOQOL-BREF measure. Results: While the original WHOQOL-BREF measure constitutes a 4-latent trait, the EFA reveals that 24 items constitute six substantial factors. The item loadings are predominantly spread over factors 1 through 4 in a mixed manner of the latent traits, while the loadings of ‘physical health’ and ‘environmental health’ latent traits show similarity to what the original measure intended to assess. The latent trait of the cross-culturally adapted WHOQOL-BREF measure administered to different cancer survivors is likely to reveal more dimensions than the original WHOQOL-BREF measure. Person reliability (i.e., analogous to Cronbach’s alpha) and separation are measured with 0.92 and 3.48, respectively. All items except the one item (medical treatment item) fit the Rasch rating model. Conclusion: Findings suggest that the latent trait and the measurement qualities of the cross-culturally adapted WHOQOL-BREF measure should be taken into consideration when applying versions of it to various populations.

Background: Equating is a statistical procedure used to create a common measurement scale across two instruments. Item-level information should be taken into consideration so that scores can communicate interchangeably across the instruments. Objects: To investigate a common measurement scale across two health-related quality of life questionnaires (HRQOL) applied to various cancer survivors who underwent palliative care in healthcare institutions. Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors who underwent palliative care were recruited from two rehabilitation hospitals and an oriental medicine hospital. Participants consisted of various cancer survivors who presented to the sites for palliative care. They were asked to fill out Korean versions of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) and EuroQOL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires following the palliative care. For the item level comparison, the Rasch rating scale model was used to investigate how participants regarded individual test items of two instruments in relation to item difficulty calibrations. Results: All items except the three items fit the Rasch model. One item (anxiety/depression) of the EQ-5D and two items (dependence on medical aids and negative feelings) of the WHOQOL- BREF are misfit. The WHOQOL-BREF targets the survivors well, while the EQ-5D is able to target the survivors with lower HRQOL levels with some ceiling effects. By inspecting the item difficulty calibrations of the two instruments, five items of the WHOQOL-BREF are selected as common items in relation to the EQ-5D. These five items are considered compatible with each other. Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis reveals that the healthcare item of the WHOQOL-BREF vs the self-care item of the EQ-5D exhibits significant DIF. Conclusion: Findings suggest that one paired item should be taken into consideration when equating the WHOQOL-BREF and the EQ-5D applied to cancer survivors who underwent palliative care.

Background: Researchers have previously commenced examining the degree of concordance between parent proxy and child self-reports on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of many disease and impairment populations. Objects: To explore the differences between parent proxy and child self-reports on the HRQOL using Korean version of KIDSCREEN-10 questionnaires for applying to elementary school children and their parents who participated for a school-based wellness program. Methods: The focus groups were recruited for a school-based wellness program by implementing the following wellness services: 1) referring to a screening session for detecting potential posture-related musculoskeletal problems and 2) recommending home exercise programs. Before a primary field testing for the program, two focus groups were formed with a group of 9 parents and their 9 elementary school children aged 8–10 years of age. The parent proxy and child self-report versions of KIDSCREEN-10 questionnaires were administered to both groups after completion of the wellness program. Item level Rasch rating scale analysis was applied to compute logit scales of KIDSCREEN-10 questionnaire. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and scatterplot of item difficulty between two reports were analyzed. Results: For fit statistics of parent proxy report, all items except 4 items (i.e., psychological well-being, mood/emotions, self-perception, parent relation) were found to be acceptable. For fit statistics of child self-report, all items except 3 items (i.e., psychological well-being, autonomy and home life) were acceptable. The relationship between two reports using ICCs were ranging from weak to very strong at p = 0.05 (i.e, ICCs = 0.011 to 0.905). Scatterplot analysis between two reports showed a major disparity on self-perception item at 95% confidence intervals. Conclusion: Both item level analyses and ICC comparisons provided a disparity between parent proxy and child self-reports of the HRQOL on self-perception item after competing a school-based wellness program. Therapist should consider the item as part of the HRQOL assessment.

Background: Cross-culturally adapted questionnaires may not be comparable to their original version. Objects: To examine concurrent validity of two health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for the Korean versions of EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors from two rehabilitation institutes was recruited. All participants were registered for palliative rehabilitation care. Both instruments were concurrently administered by health care providers following the second bout of the rehabilitation cares. Rasch partial credit model and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used to investigate: 1) dimensionality, 2) hierarchical item difficulty, and 3) concurrent validity using correlations between two instruments. Results: For the WHOQOL-BREF, all items except negative feeling, pain, dependence of medical aid, were found to be acceptable, while all items of EQ-5D were acceptable. There was an evidence of negative correlations between EQ-5D and 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Two correlations were strong (EQ-5D vs. physical health domain, ρ = –0.610, 95% CI = –0.716 to –0.475) and moderate (EQ-5D vs. psychosocial domain, ρ = –0.402, 95% CI = –0.546 to –0.236). Other two correlations were weak (EQ-5D vs. social relationship and environmental domains, ρ = –0.242, 95% CI = –0.401 to –0.075 and ρ = –0.364, 95% CI = –0.514 to –0.207, respectively). Item difficulty calibrations of the two measurements were ranged from –0.84 to 0.86 for the EQ-5D and –1.07 to 1.06 for the WHOQOL-BREF. Conclusion: The study provides some supports for the concurrent validity of the two Korean versions of HRQOL instrument, with evidences of weak to strong correlations between the EQ- 5D and four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF applied to various cancer survivors. Additionally, the cancer survivors appeared to have more of a tendency to view the EQ-5D items as being slightly more challenging than the WHOQOL-BREF items.

Most conventional instruments measuring disability rely on total score by simply adding individual item responses, which is dependent on the items chosen to represent the underlying construct (test-dependent) and a test statistic, such as coefficient alpha for the estimate of reliability, varying from sample to sample (sample-dependent). By contrast, item response theory (IRT) method focuses on the psychometric properties of the test items instead of the instrument as a whole. By estimating probability that a respondent will select a particular rating for an item, item difficulty and person ability (or disability) can be placed on same linear continuum. These estimates are invariant regardless of the item used (test-free measurement) and the ability of sample applied (sample-free measurement). These advantages of IRT allow the creation of invariantly calibrated large item banks that precisely discriminate the disability levels of individuals. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) method often requiring a testing algorithm promise a means for administering items in a way that is both efficient and precise. This method permits selectively administering items that are closely matched to the ability level of individuals (measurement precision) and measuring the ability without the loss of precision provided by the full item bank (measurement efficiency). These measurement properties can reasonably be achieved using IRT and CAT method. This article aims to investigate comprehensive overview of the existing disability instrument for back pain and to inform physical therapists of an alternative innovative way overcoming the shortcomings of conventional disability instruments. An understanding of IRT and CAT method will equip physical therapist with skills in interpreting the measurement properties of disability instruments developed using the methods.

The primary aim of this study was to compare responsiveness of self-report by worker and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument. Self-report and therapist-scored interval-level person measures and item difficulties were compared at admission and discharge. Therapist and worker ratings were collected on 230 clients from 27 rehabilitation sites using the newly developed Occupational Rehabilitation Data Base (ORDB) functional capacity instrument. ORDB comprises several subscales measuring relevant variables of "a return-to-work model" in work-related rehabilitation clinics. The functional capacity scale deals with 10 DOT job factors. The rating scale categories were 1-severely impaired, 2-moderately impaired, 3-mildly impaired, and 4-not impaired. Only data from clients with low back pain (n=98) with complete data (both admission and discharge scores) were used for the present study. Therapists and workers completed the functional capacity instrument at admission and discharge. Rasch analysis [1-parameter item response theory model (IRT)] was applied to calibrate item difficulty and person ability measure of therapist and workers ratings. Effect sizes for therapist and self-report ratings were slightly different, .69 and .30, respectively. Therapist and worker ratings were more consistent at discharge (r=.54) than at admission (r=.32). Workers have a tendency to be more severe in their ratings (show higher item difficulties) than therapists at admission and discharge. Therapists and workers report similar magnitudes of improvement following treatment program. These findings challenge the belief that injured workers may unreliable source for monitoring therapeutic outcomes. Self-report measures have the advantage of conserving therapist time for treatment (versus evaluation). While the therapist and self-report ratings are comparable at discharge, there is less consistency at admission. Comparable therapist-worker ratings may be achieved by controlling for rating severity using IRT methodologies.