• 1
    Backman CL. Employment and work disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004; 16: 14852.
  • 2
    Badley EM, Wang PP. The contribution of arthritis and arthritis disability to nonparticipation in the labor force: a Canadian example. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 107782.
  • 3
    Yelin E, Meenan R, Nevitt M, Epstein W. Work disability in rheumatoid arthritis: effects of disease, social, and work factors. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93: 5516.
  • 4
    Gilworth G, Chamberlain MA, Harvey A, Woodhouse A, Smith J, Smyth MG, et al. Development of a work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: 34954.
  • 5
    Tang K, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Lacaille D, Zhang W, Bombardier C, and the Canadian Arthritis Network Work Productivity Group. The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis predicts arthritis-related work transitions within 12 months. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62: 157887.
  • 6
    Beaton DE, Tang K, Gignac MA, Lacaille D, Badley EM, Anis AH, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62: 2837.
  • 7
    Tang K, Beaton DE, Lacaille D, Gignac MA, Zhang W, Anis AH, et al. The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS): does it work in osteoarthritis? Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 105768.
  • 8
    Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993.
  • 9
    Camilli G. Test fairness. In: Brennan RL, editor. Educational measurement. 4th ed. Westport (CT): American Council on Education; 2006. p. 22056.
  • 10
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 71948.
  • 11
    Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Meas 1990; 27: 36170.
  • 12
    Cole SR, Kawachi I, Maller SJ, Berkman LF. Test of item-response bias in the CES-D scale: experience from the New Haven EPESE study. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 2859.
  • 13
    Niti M, Ng TP, Chiam PC, Kua EH. Item response bias was present in instrumental activity of daily living scale in Asian older adults. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 36674.
  • 14
    Borsboom D. When does measurement invariance matter? Med Care 2006; 44 Suppl: S17681.
  • 15
    Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 91333.
  • 16
    Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Bjorner JB, Aaronson N, Conroy T, Cull A, et al. Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 37385.
  • 17
    Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, et al. The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 11529.
  • 18
    Martin M, Blaisdell B, Kwong JW, Bjorner JB. The Short-Form Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was psychometrically equivalent in nine languages. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 12718.
  • 19
    Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42 Suppl: I3748.
  • 20
    Schmidt S, Debensason D, Muhlan H, Petersen C, Power M, Simeoni MC, et al. The DISABKIDS generic quality of life instrument showed cross-cultural validity. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 58798.
  • 21
    Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tennant A, Grimby G, Sunnerhagen KS. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 55.
  • 22
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23: 13745.
  • 23
    Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psych Meas 1993; 17: 297334.
  • 24
    Hambleton RK. Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care 2006; 44 Suppl: S1828.
  • 25
    Teresi JA, Fleishman JA. Differential item functioning and health assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 Suppl: 3342.
  • 26
    Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Ocepek-Welikson K, Cook K, Cella D, Narasimhalu K, et al. A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 Suppl: 6984.
  • 27
    Jodoin MG, Gierl MJ. Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with logistic regression procedures for DIF detections. Appl Meas Educ 2001; 14: 32949.
  • 28
    Dorans NJ, Holland PW. DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardisation. In: Holland P, Wainer H, editors. Differential item functioning: theory and practice. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993. p. 3666.
  • 29
    Holland PW, Thayer DT. An alternative definition of the ETS delta scale of item difficulty (research report 85-43). Princeton (NJ): Educational Testing Service; 1985.
  • 30
    Penfield RD. Application of the Breslow-Day test of trend in odds ratio heterogeneity to the detection of nonuniform DIF. Alberta J Educ Res 2003; 49: 23143.
  • 31
    Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. I. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980.
  • 32
    Clauser BE, Mazor KM. Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educ Meas Issues Pract 1998; 2: 3144.
  • 33
    Swaminathan H. Differential item functioning: a discussion. In: Laveault D, Zumbo BD, Gessaroli ME, Boss MW, editors. Modern theories of measurement: problems and issues. Ottawa: University of Ottawa; 1994. p. 17180.
  • 34
    Zumbo BD. A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense; 1999.
  • 35
    Lai JS, Teresi J, Gershon R. Procedures for the analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) for small sample sizes. Eval Health Prof 2005; 28: 28394.
  • 36
    Camilli G, Shepard LA. Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.
  • 37
    Hidalgo MH, Lopez-Pina JA. Differential item functioning detection and effect size: a comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 2004; 64: 90315.
  • 38
    Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
  • 39
    Guttman LA. The basis of Scalogram analysis. In: Stouffer SA, Guttman LA, Suchman FA, Lazarsfel PF, Star SA, Clausen JA, editors. Studies in social psychology in World War II. Vol. 4. Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1950. p. 6090.
  • 40
    Svensson E. Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 478.
  • 41
    Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 135862.
  • 42
    Fisher WJ. Reliability statistics. Rasch Meas Trans 1992; 6: 238.
  • 43
    Wright BD. Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Meas Trans 1996; 10: 50911.
  • 44
    Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 20531.
  • 45
    Tennant A, Pallant JF. Unidimensionality matters. Rasch Meas Trans 2006; 20: 104851.
  • 46
    Steinberg L, Thissen D. Uses of item response theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychol Methods 1996; 1: 8197.
  • 47
    Smith RM. Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas 2000; 1: 199218.
  • 48
    Hagquist C, Andrich D. Is the sense of coherence-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch modelling. Pers Indiv Differ 2004; 36: 95568.
  • 49
    Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2020. Perth: RUMM Laboratory; 2003.
  • 50
    Groenvold M, Petersen MA. The role of use of differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of quality of life data from clinical trials. In: Fayers PM, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 195208.