Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning
Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to ex...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2012-12, Vol.7 (12), p.e52028-e52028 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e52028 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e52028 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 7 |
| creator | Arthurs, Erin Steele, Russell J Hudson, Marie Baron, Murray Thombs, Brett D |
| description | Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).
The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF).
A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF.
Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0052028 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1327147933</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A477083565</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d50728608e5a4bcb8df8dbd4e6947285</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A477083565</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-ca650b971c338ccfd62ade3e9e94e2728c21a6dba18c99f034c86cf603c14a923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBYQkJw2CW2Eye-FK2qlq5UqXxfLceZZL1y7K2dVPDvcdi02qAekA-xPM_7jmfiSZKXOF1iWuAPWzd4K81y5yws0zQnKSkfJceYU7JgJKWPD_ZHybMQthGiJWNPkyNCSY5ZwY6Tm5UHFJTzEJCz6Ny2RocNkrZGFx6s2qBb8EE7G8MN6jeAPl9-WXCkXLeTXlYGPqKVRTIECKED249YrZsGorrX0iDdQ4eawao-umjbPk-eNNIEeDF9T5IfF-ffzy4XV9ef1merq4VinPQLJVmeVrzAitJSqaZmRNZAgQPPgBSkVARLVlcSl4rzJqWZKplqWEoVziQn9CR5vffdGRfE1K0gMCUFzgpOaSTWe6J2cit2XnfS_xZOavH3wPlWSN9rZUDUeRpTsrSEXGaVqsq6KeuqzoDxLAby6HU6ZRuqDmoVi_fSzEznEas3onW3guaEMMKjwbvJwLubAUIvOh0UGCMtuCHemxSU4oIRFtE3_6APVzdRrYwFaNu4mFeNpmKVFUVa0pyN914-QMVVQ6dVfFqNjuczwfuZIDI9_OpbOYQg1t--_j97_XPOvj1gNyBNvwnODOOrCXMw24PKuxA8NPdNxqkYJ-OuG2KcDDFNRpS9OvxB96K7UaB_ANp4CKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1327147933</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Acc</source><creator>Arthurs, Erin ; Steele, Russell J ; Hudson, Marie ; Baron, Murray ; Thombs, Brett D</creator><contributor>Laks, Jerson</contributor><creatorcontrib>Arthurs, Erin ; Steele, Russell J ; Hudson, Marie ; Baron, Murray ; Thombs, Brett D ; (CSRG) Canadian Scleroderma Research Group ; Laks, Jerson</creatorcontrib><description>Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).
The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF).
A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF.
Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23251676</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Canada ; Chronic illnesses ; Collaboration ; Equivalence ; Ethics ; Female ; Health surveys ; Health Surveys - standards ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Language ; Linguistics ; Male ; Measuring instruments ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Mental depression ; Middle Aged ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards ; Patients ; Psychiatry ; Quantitative psychology ; Rheumatology ; Sampling methods ; Scleroderma ; Scleroderma (Disease) ; Scleroderma, Systemic - diagnosis ; Self Report ; Social and Behavioral Sciences ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Systemic sclerosis</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2012-12, Vol.7 (12), p.e52028-e52028</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2012 Arthurs et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2012 Arthurs et al 2012 Arthurs et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-ca650b971c338ccfd62ade3e9e94e2728c21a6dba18c99f034c86cf603c14a923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-ca650b971c338ccfd62ade3e9e94e2728c21a6dba18c99f034c86cf603c14a923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522629/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522629/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23251676$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Laks, Jerson</contributor><creatorcontrib>Arthurs, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Russell J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hudson, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baron, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thombs, Brett D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>(CSRG) Canadian Scleroderma Research Group</creatorcontrib><title>Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).
The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF).
A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF.
Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Equivalence</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Health Surveys - standards</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Rheumatology</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Scleroderma</subject><subject>Scleroderma (Disease)</subject><subject>Scleroderma, Systemic - diagnosis</subject><subject>Self Report</subject><subject>Social and Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Systemic sclerosis</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBYQkJw2CW2Eye-FK2qlq5UqXxfLceZZL1y7K2dVPDvcdi02qAekA-xPM_7jmfiSZKXOF1iWuAPWzd4K81y5yws0zQnKSkfJceYU7JgJKWPD_ZHybMQthGiJWNPkyNCSY5ZwY6Tm5UHFJTzEJCz6Ny2RocNkrZGFx6s2qBb8EE7G8MN6jeAPl9-WXCkXLeTXlYGPqKVRTIECKED249YrZsGorrX0iDdQ4eawao-umjbPk-eNNIEeDF9T5IfF-ffzy4XV9ef1merq4VinPQLJVmeVrzAitJSqaZmRNZAgQPPgBSkVARLVlcSl4rzJqWZKplqWEoVziQn9CR5vffdGRfE1K0gMCUFzgpOaSTWe6J2cit2XnfS_xZOavH3wPlWSN9rZUDUeRpTsrSEXGaVqsq6KeuqzoDxLAby6HU6ZRuqDmoVi_fSzEznEas3onW3guaEMMKjwbvJwLubAUIvOh0UGCMtuCHemxSU4oIRFtE3_6APVzdRrYwFaNu4mFeNpmKVFUVa0pyN914-QMVVQ6dVfFqNjuczwfuZIDI9_OpbOYQg1t--_j97_XPOvj1gNyBNvwnODOOrCXMw24PKuxA8NPdNxqkYJ-OuG2KcDDFNRpS9OvxB96K7UaB_ANp4CKg</recordid><startdate>20121214</startdate><enddate>20121214</enddate><creator>Arthurs, Erin</creator><creator>Steele, Russell J</creator><creator>Hudson, Marie</creator><creator>Baron, Murray</creator><creator>Thombs, Brett D</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121214</creationdate><title>Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning</title><author>Arthurs, Erin ; Steele, Russell J ; Hudson, Marie ; Baron, Murray ; Thombs, Brett D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-ca650b971c338ccfd62ade3e9e94e2728c21a6dba18c99f034c86cf603c14a923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Equivalence</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Health Surveys - standards</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Rheumatology</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Scleroderma</topic><topic>Scleroderma (Disease)</topic><topic>Scleroderma, Systemic - diagnosis</topic><topic>Self Report</topic><topic>Social and Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Systemic sclerosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Arthurs, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Russell J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hudson, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baron, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thombs, Brett D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>(CSRG) Canadian Scleroderma Research Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Gale)</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Arthurs, Erin</au><au>Steele, Russell J</au><au>Hudson, Marie</au><au>Baron, Murray</au><au>Thombs, Brett D</au><au>Laks, Jerson</au><aucorp>(CSRG) Canadian Scleroderma Research Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2012-12-14</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e52028</spage><epage>e52028</epage><pages>e52028-e52028</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).
The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF).
A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF.
Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>23251676</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0052028</doi><tpages>e52028</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2012-12, Vol.7 (12), p.e52028-e52028 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1327147933 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Acc |
| subjects | Analysis Canada Chronic illnesses Collaboration Equivalence Ethics Female Health surveys Health Surveys - standards Hospitals Humans Language Linguistics Male Measuring instruments Medical research Medical screening Medicine Mental depression Middle Aged Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards Patients Psychiatry Quantitative psychology Rheumatology Sampling methods Scleroderma Scleroderma (Disease) Scleroderma, Systemic - diagnosis Self Report Social and Behavioral Sciences Statistical analysis Statistical methods Studies Surveys and Questionnaires - standards Systemic sclerosis |
| title | Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T01%3A57%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20scores%20on%20English%20and%20French%20versions%20of%20the%20PHQ-9%20comparable?%20An%20assessment%20of%20differential%20item%20functioning&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Arthurs,%20Erin&rft.aucorp=(CSRG)%20Canadian%20Scleroderma%20Research%20Group&rft.date=2012-12-14&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e52028&rft.epage=e52028&rft.pages=e52028-e52028&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0052028&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA477083565%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1327147933&rft_id=info:pmid/23251676&rft_galeid=A477083565&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d50728608e5a4bcb8df8dbd4e6947285&rfr_iscdi=true |