Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2016, Article ID 8790691, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8790691
Research Article

Differential Item Functioning of the Psychological Domain of the Menopause Rating Scale

1Grupo de Investigación Salud de la Mujer, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia
2Grupo de Investigación del Comportamiento Humano, Instituto de Investigación del Comportamiento Humano, Bogotá, Colombia

Received 12 July 2016; Accepted 6 October 2016

Academic Editor: Adam Reich

Copyright © 2016 Alvaro Monterrosa-Castro et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. H. P. G. Schneider and G. A. Hauser, “The menopause rating scale (MRS II)—clusters of menopausal symptoms,” Maturitas, vol. 27, supplement, article 201, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  2. D. A. Cook and T. J. Beckman, “Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 166.e7–166.e16, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. A. Ackerman, “A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective,” Journal of Educational Measurement, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 67–91, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. R. D. Hays, L. S. Morales, and S. P. Reise, “Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century,” Medical Care, vol. 38, no. 9, supplement 2, pp. II28–II42, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. K. Heinemann, A. Ruebig, P. Potthoff et al., “The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale: a methodological review,” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 2, article 45, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. L. A. J. Heinemann, P. Potthoff, and H. P. G. Schneider, “International versions of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS),” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 1, article 28, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. V. D. Sousa and W. Rojjanasrirat, “Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 268–274, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “A one-way components of variance model for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 671–679, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C. Spearman, “Correlation calculated from faulty data,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 271–295, 1910. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. P. McDonald, “Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis and alpha factor analysis,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. M. E. Schmidt and K. Steindorf, “Statistical methods for the validation of questionnaires,” Methods of Information in Medicine, vol. 45, pp. 409–413, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  13. M. Lock, “Symptom reporting at menopause: a review of cross-cultural findings,” Journal of the British Menopause Society, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 132–136, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. Rubio-Stipec, M. H. R. Hicks, and M. T. Tsuang, “Cultural factors influencing the selection, use, and interpretation of psychiatric measures,” in Handbook of Psychiatric Measures, pp. 33–41, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  15. A. Sikorskii, C. W. Given, B. Given, S. Jeon, and M. You, “Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview,” Medical Care, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 866–874, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. N. Chuni and C. T. Sreeramareddy, “Frequency of symptoms, determinants of severe symptoms, validity of and cut-off score for Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool: a cross-sectional survey among midlife Nepalese women,” BMC Women's Health, vol. 11, article 30, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Rahman, S. Zainudin, and V. Mun, “Assessment of menopausal symptoms using modified Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) among middle age women in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia,” Asia Pacific Family Medicine, vol. 9, article 5, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. K. Krajewska-Ferishah, E. Krajewska-Kułak, S. Terlikowski et al., “Analysis of quality of life of women in menopause period in Poland, Greece, Belarus and Belgium using MRS Scale. A multicenter study,” Advances in Medical Sciences, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 191–195, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. D. Legorreta, J. A. Montaño, I. Hernández, C. Salinas, and AMEC Research Committee, “Age at menopause, motives for consultation and symptoms reported by 40–59-year-old Mexican women,” Climateric, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 417–425, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. E. Strauss, O. Spreen, and M. Hunter, “Implications of test revisions for research,” Psychological Assessment, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 237–244, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus