Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-cultural Measurement Equivalence of the KINDL Questionnaire for Quality of Life Assessment in Children and Adolescents

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This cross-cultural study aimed to assess whether Iranian and Serbian children, and also their parents, perceived the meaning of the items in the KINDL quality of life questionnaire consistently. The sample included 1086 Iranian and 756 Serbian children and adolescents, alongside 1061 and 618 of their parents, respectively. The ordinal logistic regression was used to assess differential item functioning (DIF) of the self and proxy-reports of the two versions of the KINDL, including Kid-KINDL and Kiddo-KINDL, across Iranian and Serbian samples. Statistically significant DIF was flagged for 14 out of 24 (58 %) and 20 out of 24 (83 %) items in the self-report of the Kid-KINDL and Kiddo-KINDL, respectively. Moreover, 20 out of 24 (83 %) in the proxy reports of the both Kid-KINDL and Kiddo-KINDL, showed DIF across two samples. Accordingly, considerable caution is warranted when using the KINDL for cross-cultural comparisons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D et al (2003) Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration. Value Health 6:522–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fayed N, de Camargo OK, Kerr E, Rosenbaum P, Dubey A, Bostan C et al (2012) Generic patient-reported outcomes in child health research: a review of conceptual content using World Health Organization definitions. Dev Med Child Neurol 54:1085–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt S, Bullinger M (2003) Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:S29–S34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart AL, Napoles-Springer A (2000) Health-related quality-of-life assessments in diverse population groups in the United States. Med Care 38:II102–II124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sartorius N, Kuyken W (1994) Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W (eds) Quality of life assessment: international perspectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  7. Regnault A, Herdman M (2015) Using quantitative methods within the Universalist model framework to explore the cross-cultural equivalence of patient-reported outcome instruments. Qual Life Res 24:115–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ho SM, Rochelle TL, Law LS, Duan W, Bai Y, Shih SM et al (2014) Methodological issues in positive psychology research with diverse populations: exploring strengths among Chinese adults. In: Pedrotti JT, Edwards LM (eds) Perspectives on the intersection of multiculturalism and positive psychology. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  9. Teresi JA, Fleishman JA (2007) Differential item functioning and health assessment. Qual Life Res 1:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne BM, Watkins D (2003) The issue of measurement invariance revisited. J Cross Cult Psychol 34:155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Limbers CA, Newman DA, Varni JW (2009) Factorial invariance of child self-report across race/ethnicity groups: a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach utilizing the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Ann Epidemiol 19:575–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ravens-Sieberer U, Auquier P, Erhart M, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Bruil J et al (2007) The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Qual Life Res 16:1347–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ravens-Sieberer U, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Erhart M, Bruil J, Power M et al (2008) The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value Health 11:645–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Robitail S, Ravens-Sieberer U, Simeoni MC, Rajmil L, Bruil J, Power M et al (2007) Testing the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. Qual Life Res 16:1335–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stevanovic D, Jafari P (2015) A cross-cultural study to assess measurement invariance of the KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire across Serbian and Iranian children and adolescents. Qual Life Res 24:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M, Skarr D (2003) The PedsQL 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity. Ambul Pediatr 3:329–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ravens-Sieberer U, Bullinger M (1998) Assessing health-related quality of life in chronically ill children with the German KINDL: first psychometric and content analytical results. Qual Life Res 7:399–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eser E, Yuksel H, Baydur H, Erhart M, Saatli G, Cengiz Ozyurt B et al (2008) The psychometric properties of the new Turkish generic health-related quality of life questionnaire for children (Kid-KINDL). Turk Psikiyatri Derg 19:409–417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fernandez-Lopez JA, Fernandez Fidalgo M, Cieza A, Ravens-Sieberer U (2004) Measuring health-related quality of life in children and adolescents: preliminary validation and reliability of the Spanish version of the KINDL questionnaire. Aten Primaria 33:434–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Helseth S, Lund T (2005) Assessing health-related quality of life in adolescents: some psychometric properties of the first Norwegian version of KINDL. Scand J Caring Sci 19:102–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jafari P, Sharafi Z, Bagheri Z, Shalileh S (2014) Measurement equivalence of the KINDL questionnaire across child self-reports and parent proxy-reports: a comparison between item response theory and ordinal logistic regression. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 45:369–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee PH, Chang LI, Ravens-Sieberer U (2008) Psychometric evaluation of the Taiwanese version of the Kiddo-kINDL generic children’s health-related quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res 17:603–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevanovic D (2009) Serbian KINDL questionnaire for quality of life assessments in healthy children and adolescents: reproducibility and construct validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Stevanovic D, Lakic A, Vilotic J (2009) The psychometric study of the Serbian KINDL questionnaire for health-related quality of life assessment in children and adolescents. Scand J Caring Sci 23:361–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yamaguchi N, Poudel KC, Poudel-Tandukar K, Shakya D, Ravens-Sieberer U, Jimba M (2010) Reliability and validity of a Nepalese version of the Kiddo-KINDL in adolescents. Biosci Trends 4:178–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Ocepek-Welikson K, Cook K, Cella D, Narasimhalu K et al (2007) A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Qual Life Res 16(Suppl 1):69–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M (2010) Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes 8:81

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Crane PK, Hart DL, Gibbons LE, Cook KF (2006) A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. J Clin Epidemiol 59:478–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang IC, Leite WL, Shearer P, Seid M, Revicki DA, Shenkman EA (2011) Differential item functioning in quality of life measure between children with and without special health-care needs. Value Health 14:872–883

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schalock RL, Verdugo MA, Jenaro C, Wang M, Wehmeyer M, Jiancheng X et al (2005) Cross-cultural study of quality of life indicators. Am J Ment Retard 110:298–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wyse AE (2013) DIF cancellation in the Rasch Model. J Appl Meas 14:118–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim SY, Nair R, Knight GP, Roosa MW, Updegraff KA (2008) Measurement equivalence of neighborhood quality measures for European American and Mexican American Families. J Community Psychol 37:1–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim ES, Yoon M (2011) Testing measurement invariance: a comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Struct Equ Modeling 18:212–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lalwani AK, Shavitt S, Johnson T (2006) What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? J Pers Soc Psychol 90:165–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 133:859–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roessner V, Becker A, Rothenberger A, Rohde LA, Banaschewski T (2007) A cross-cultural comparison between samples of Brazilian and German children with ADHD/HD using the Child Behavior Checklist. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 257:352–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Peyman Jafari & Zahra Bagheri

  2. Department of Psychiatry, Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth, Dr. Subotic 6a, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dejan Stevanovic

Authors
  1. Peyman Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dejan Stevanovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahra Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dejan Stevanovic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jafari, P., Stevanovic, D. & Bagheri, Z. Cross-cultural Measurement Equivalence of the KINDL Questionnaire for Quality of Life Assessment in Children and Adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 47, 291–304 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-015-0568-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-015-0568-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation