Author (year)
|
IADL items (red ones indicate having gender-related DIF)
|
Population (sample size)
|
How to assess DIF
|
DIF criteria
|
How to deal with DIF
|
Lutomski et al. (2016)
|
1. telephone
2. medicine
3. managing finances
4. meal
preparation
5. shopping
6. traveling
7. household tasks
*showed
non-uniform DIF in the community-dwelling
sample , but showed uniform DIF in the residential care facility sample
|
Community-dwelling
(n=21,926) or
residential care facility
(n=2,458) older persons
|
1. An ANOVA of the standardized response residuals of each item by
class interval
(RUMM2030 software was
used)
2. Visually inspect the observed item characteristic
curve (ICC) by gender group relative to the theoretical ICC
|
Uniform DIF: a significant main
effect for gender
Non-uniform DIF: a significant
interaction between gender and class interval
|
Uniform DIF: weighting
Non-uniform DIF: remove the item from the
scale
|
Sousa et al. (2015)
|
1. IADLs-Household
(IADLs-H):
18 items, including
domains of conversation and telephone use, meal preparation, housekeeping and
home security
2. IADLs-Advanced
(IADLs-A):
17 items, including
domains of comprehension and communication, health-related decision
making, finances, going out and transportation use and leisure and
interpersonal relationships
|
Community-dwelling adults
and older adults (n=567)
Patients with several
neurological or psychiatric diagnoses (n=236)
Total sample size=803
|
Reference group vs. Focal
group
1. Independent t test with the Bonferroni adjustment to
test whether there is significant difference of the difficulty parameters between both groups
2. The Mantel-Haenszel method: use a
chi-square statistic with the
Bonferroni adjustment to test whether there is a significant difference
between the odd of a correct answer to the item in both groups
(WINSTEPS software was
used)
|
1. DIF: a difference >0.50
logits and statistically significant (Bonferroni’s correction: p=0.05/number
of items) between
2. DIF: a
difference > 1.5 Delta-MH (0.64 logits) and statistically
significant
|
Not mentioned
|
Hammond et al. (2015)
|
1. cooking
2. cleaning the house
3. laundry and clothes
care
4. moving and transfers
5. communication
6. moving outdoors and
shopping
7. gardening and house
maintenance
8. caring
9. leisure and social
activities
|
Adults with rheumatoid
arthritis (n=502)
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Forjaz et al. (2015)
|
1. bus
2. walking outside
3. shopping
4. preparing meals
5. performing household chores
|
A random sub-sample of
people (n=250) was selected from a sample of people aged 65 and over with at
least one disability and receiving personal help with one of the 14 BADL/IADL (n=8381)
* a minimum of
10 people was maintained in each of the response categories
|
ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction
(RUMM2030 software was used)
|
DIF: the ANOVA for DIF is
significant (p<0.05/14)
|
Not mentioned
|
Darzins et al. (2014)
|
1. clothing:managing laundry
2. nutrition: (1) eat
without choking/coughing;
(2) planning meals;
(3) preparing meals; (4) using the stove
3. mobility: (1) moving
around outdoors; (2) getting to/from appointments
4. safety: (1) managing
medicine; (2) avoiding alcohol/substance overuse; (3) coping
without repeated emergency help
5. residence: (1) managing
money; (2) managing home security; (3) using basic personal information; (4)
shopping for personal/household needs
*uniform DIF
|
Adults (aged 18 or older)
inpatient rehabilitation participants (n=996)
|
Both uniform and
non-uniform DIF were examined.
(RUMM2030 software was
used)
|
Not mentioned
|
Contain items that
demonstrate DIF (clinically relevant to the scale)
|
Chen et al. (2013)
|
1. walk around outside
2. climb stairs
3. get in and out of the
car
4. walk over uneven ground
5. cross roads
6. travel on public
transport
7. manage to feed yourself
8. manage to make yourself
a hot drink
9. take hot drinks from
one room to another
10. make yourself a hot
snack
11. wash dishes
12. deposit or withdraw
money
13. wash small items of
clothing
14. do your own housework
15. do your own shopping
16. do a full clothes wash
17. read newspapers or
books
18. use the telephone
19. write letters
20. go out socially
21. plant in your garden
or mange your own houseplants or garden
22. drive a car, ride a
motor scooter, or ride a bike
|
Patients with stroke
(n=188)
|
Independent
t test with the Bonferroni adjustment
|
DIF: a difference >0.50
logits and statistically significant (Bonferroni’s correction: p=0.05/number
of items)
|
Not mentioned
|
Baumeister et al. (2013)
|
IADL respectively physical
functioning items, such as travelling with public transportation more than
half an hour and getting groceries
* did not
mention which item with gender-related DIF
|
Patients with
cardiovascular disease (n=720)
|
Not mentioned
|
Uniform DIF:
a significant main effect
of gender (p<0.05)
Non-uniform DIF: a significant
interaction effect (p<0.05)
|
Exclude items
with gender-related DIF
|
Nair et al. (2011)
|
The same as those IADL
items used in Chen et al. (2013)
Uniform DIF:
drive a car, ride a motor scooter, or ride a bike
|
Patients with acute stroke
(first or recurrent) (n=210)
|
ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction (RUMM2030
software was used)
|
Not mentioned.
|
Retain the item if the
removal of the item is not found to improve fit to Rasch model (person
estimates derived before and after removal do not differ by less than 0.5
logits on average)
|
Niti et al. (2007)
|
Physical IADL
1. getting to places
outside house
2. grocery shopping
3. preparing meals
4. doing housework
5. doing laundry
Cognitive IADL
1. using telephone
2. taking medications
3. managing money
|
Noninstitutionalized
elderly subjects (n=1,072)
|
1. Modification index statistic
2. Multiple -Indicator -Multiple-Cause model (MIMIC):
to assess DIF with multiple latent variables (physical & cognitive IADL)
|
To estimate the percentage changes in beta weights between the DIF and
non-DIF models
|
Delete the item that shows
large DIF or adjust it in a statistical model
|
Fleishman et al. (2002)
|
1. Shopping
2. Doing light
housework
3. Doing heavy housework
4. Preparing own meals
5. Managing money
6. Using the
telephone
|
Adults respondents who
received help or supervision with at least one of 11 ADL/IADL (n=5,750)
|
MIMIC: to assess DIF with
multiple latent variables (ADL & IADL)
(Mplus software was used)
|
To determine which model
(DIF vs. non-DIF) had a better model fitting
|
1.
Statistical adjustment (to fit latent variable models)
2.
Reword questions that exist DIF
3.
Delete items with DIF (need to consider the impact on
the content validity of the scale)
|
Spector & Fleishman
(1998)
|
1. preparing meals
2. doing housework
3. doing laundry
4. shopping
5. managing money
6. taking medicines
7. telephoning
8. going places outside of
walking distance
9. getting around outside
|
Functionally disabled
elderly (n=2,977)
|
A
multiple-group IRT analysis to examine
the largest differences in
location parameters for men and women
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
References:
Spector, W.D. and J.A. Fleishman, Combining
activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to
measure functional disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 1998. 53(1):
p. S46-57.
Fleishman, J.A., W.D. Spector, and B.M. Altman, Impact
of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional
disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 2002. 57(5):
p. S275-84.
Niti, M., et al., Item response bias was present
in instrumental activity of daily living scale in Asian older adults. J
Clin Epidemiol, 2007. 60(4): p. 366-74.
das Nair, R., B.J. Moreton, and N.B. Lincoln, Rasch
analysis of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale. J
Rehabil Med, 2011. 43(10): p. 944-50.
Baumeister, H., et al., Development and
calibration of an item bank for the assessment of activities of daily living in
cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life
Outcomes, 2013. 11: p. 133.
Chen, H.F., et al., Rasch validation of a
combined measure of basic and extended daily life functioning after stroke. Neurorehabil
Neural Repair, 2013. 27(2): p. 125-32.
Darzins, S., et al., Evaluation of the internal
construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource
Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis. BMC Health Serv Res, 2014. 14:
p. 543.
Forjaz, M.J., A. Ayala, and A. Abellan, Hierarchical
nature of activities of daily living in the Spanish Disability Survey. Rheumatol
Int, 2015. 35(9): p. 1581-9.
Hammond, A., et al., The reliability and validity
of the English version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire for
people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford), 2015. 54(9):
p. 1605-15.
Sousa, L.B., et al., The Adults and Older Adults
Functional Assessment Inventory: A Rasch Model Analysis. Res Aging,
2015. 37(8): p. 787-814.
Lutomski, J.E., et al., Rasch analysis reveals
comparative analyses of activities of daily living/instrumental activities of
daily living summary scores from different residential settings is
inappropriate. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016. 74: p. 207-17.
