Differential item functioning of PROMIS Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a across levels of health literacy in a community sample of adults.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Rowida Mohamed,Michael K Paasche-Orlow,Eloisa Serrano,Melissa Marquez,Lori Henault,Claire Weaver,Noël C Slesinger Roy,Francesca R Farina,Emily Hurstak,Michelle Taddeo,Katherina Hauner,James W Griffith
{"title":"Differential item functioning of PROMIS Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a across levels of health literacy in a community sample of adults.","authors":"Rowida Mohamed,Michael K Paasche-Orlow,Eloisa Serrano,Melissa Marquez,Lori Henault,Claire Weaver,Noël C Slesinger Roy,Francesca R Farina,Emily Hurstak,Michelle Taddeo,Katherina Hauner,James W Griffith","doi":"10.1037/pas0001449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Limited health literacy may contribute to systematic bias in health assessments relying on self-report. The present study aimed to examine how varying levels of health literacy might affect scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a, a commonly used tool to assess self-reported perceptions of sleep quality. A community-based sample of adults (≥18 years) from Boston and Chicago was included in the study. Health literacy was measured using the Health Literacy Assessment Using Talking Touchscreen Technology (Health LiTT). We conducted a differential item functioning analysis using an ordinal logistic regression and a graded response model. Monte Carlo simulations were employed to establish effect size thresholds. We analyzed data from 702 participants, with a mean age of 49.1 ± 15.6 years. The sample included 61.5% females, 41.6% Black participants, and 27.8% Hispanic participants, with 58% demonstrating low health literacy. Participants in the low health literacy group reported higher sleep disturbance levels compared to those in the adequate health literacy group. Four of the eight items on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a scale exhibited statistically significant differential item functioning by health literacy, indicating that individuals with varying levels of health literacy interpret or respond to these items differently, even when they have the same underlying sleep disturbance level. The overall impact of differential item functioning on total scores, however, was negligible. The psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a support its use across populations with varying levels of health literacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"264 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001449","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Limited health literacy may contribute to systematic bias in health assessments relying on self-report. The present study aimed to examine how varying levels of health literacy might affect scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a, a commonly used tool to assess self-reported perceptions of sleep quality. A community-based sample of adults (≥18 years) from Boston and Chicago was included in the study. Health literacy was measured using the Health Literacy Assessment Using Talking Touchscreen Technology (Health LiTT). We conducted a differential item functioning analysis using an ordinal logistic regression and a graded response model. Monte Carlo simulations were employed to establish effect size thresholds. We analyzed data from 702 participants, with a mean age of 49.1 ± 15.6 years. The sample included 61.5% females, 41.6% Black participants, and 27.8% Hispanic participants, with 58% demonstrating low health literacy. Participants in the low health literacy group reported higher sleep disturbance levels compared to those in the adequate health literacy group. Four of the eight items on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a scale exhibited statistically significant differential item functioning by health literacy, indicating that individuals with varying levels of health literacy interpret or respond to these items differently, even when they have the same underlying sleep disturbance level. The overall impact of differential item functioning on total scores, however, was negligible. The psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance-Short Form 8a support its use across populations with varying levels of health literacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
社区成人样本中PROMIS睡眠障碍-短表8a在健康素养水平上的差异项目功能
有限的健康素养可能导致依赖自我报告的健康评估存在系统性偏差。本研究旨在研究不同水平的健康素养如何影响患者报告结果测量信息系统睡眠障碍短表8a的得分,这是一种常用的评估自我报告睡眠质量感知的工具。来自波士顿和芝加哥的以社区为基础的成人(≥18岁)样本被纳入研究。健康素养的测量使用健康素养评估使用说话触摸屏技术(健康LiTT)。我们使用有序逻辑回归和分级反应模型进行了差异项目功能分析。采用蒙特卡罗模拟建立效应大小阈值。我们分析了702名参与者的数据,平均年龄为49.1±15.6岁。样本包括61.5%的女性,41.6%的黑人和27.8%的西班牙裔参与者,其中58%的人表现出低健康素养。低健康素养组的参与者报告的睡眠障碍水平高于健康素养充足组的参与者。在患者报告结果测量信息系统睡眠障碍短表8a量表上的8个项目中,有4个项目在健康素养方面表现出统计学上显著的差异,这表明不同健康素养水平的个体对这些项目的解释或反应不同,即使他们具有相同的潜在睡眠障碍水平。然而,不同项目功能对总分的总体影响可以忽略不计。患者报告结果测量信息系统睡眠障碍短表8a的心理测量特性支持其在不同健康素养水平的人群中使用。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书