Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Migraine | Research

Migraine screen questionnaire: further psychometric evidence from categorical data methods

Authors: Md. Dilshad Manzar, Unaise Abdul Hameed, Mohammed Salahuddin, Mohammad Yunus Ali Khan, Dejen Nureye, Wakuma Wakene, Majed Alamri, Abdulrhman Albougami, Seithikuruppu R. PandiPerumal, Ahmed S. Bahammam

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Psychometric investigations of tools used in the screening of migraine including the migraine screen questionnaire (MS-Q), using an adequate statistical approach is needed. We assessed the psychometric properties of the migraine screen questionnaire (MS-Q) using categorical data methods.

Material and methods

A total of 343 students at Mizan-Tepi University, Ethiopia, age range = 18–35 years were selected by a simple random sampling method to participate in a cross-sectional study. The respondents completed the MS-Q, a semi-structured socio-demographic questionnaire, and a visual analog scale for attention (VAS-A).

Results

The cumulative variance rule (> 40%), the Kaiser’s criteria (Eigenvalue> 1), the Scree test and, the parallel analysis (minimum rank) identified a 1-factor model for the MS-Q with the factor loadings in the range of 0.78 to 0.84. Fit indices favored a 1-factor model of the MS-Q as indicated by comparative fit index (0.993), weighted root mean square residual (0.048), root mean square error of approximation (0.067), the goodness of fit index (1.00), and non-normed fit index (0.987). The values of the Factor Determinacy Index (0.953), marginal reliability (0.909), H-latent (0.909), H-observed (0.727), explained common variance (0.906) and the mean item residual absolute loadings (0.225) further complimented finding of the 1-Factor model. McDonald’s Omega (0.903) suggested adequate internal consistency. Discriminative validity was supported by significantly higher scores for the total and all the MS-Q items except one among those with complaints of attention.

Conclusion

The categorical methods support the psychometric validity of the MS-Q in the study population.

Mier RW, Dhadwal S. Primary headaches. Dent Clin N Am. 2018;62(4):611–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2018.06.006.CrossRefPubMed

Jacobsena BA, Dyb G, Hagen K, Stovner LJ, Holmen TL, Zwart JA. The Nord-Trondelag health study shows increased prevalence of primary recurrent headaches among adolescents over a four-year period. Scand J Pain. 2018;2(3):148–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2011.03.002.CrossRefPubMed

Chen CY, Yu NW, Huang TH, Wang WS, Fang JT. Harm avoidance and depression, anxiety, insomnia, and migraine in fifth-year medical students in Taiwan. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:1273–80. https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.%20S163021.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Benamer HT, Deleu D, Grosset D. Epidemiology of headache in Arab countries. J Headache Pain 2010;11 1:1–3; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-009-0173-8.

Al-Hashel JY, Ahmed SF, Alroughani R, Goadsby PJ. Migraine among medical students in Kuwait University. J Headache Pain. 2014;15:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-15-26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wang X, Zhou HB, Sun JM, Xing YH, Zhu YL, Zhao YS. The prevalence of migraine in university students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(3):464–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.12784.CrossRefPubMed

De Diego EV, Lanteri-Minet M. Recognition and management of migraine in primary care: influence of functional impact measured by the headache impact test (HIT). Cephalalgia. 2005;25(3):184–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2004.00820.x.CrossRefPubMed

Dowson AJ, Sender J, Lipscombe S, Cady RK, Tepper SJ, Smith R, et al. Establishing principles for migraine management in primary care. Int J Clin Pract. 2003;57(6):493–507.PubMed

Lipton RB, Dodick D, Sadovsky R, Kolodner K, Endicott J, Hettiarachchi J, et al. A self-administered screener for migraine in primary care: the ID migraine validation study. Neurology. 2003;61(3):375–82.CrossRef

10.

Maizels M, Burchette R. Rapid and sensitive paradigm for screening patients with headache in primary care settings. Headache. 2003;43(5):441–50.CrossRef

11.

Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Brennum J, Iversen HK, Jensen RA, Olesen J. Presentation of a new instrument: the diagnostic headache diary. Cephalalgia. 1992;12(6):369–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.1992.00369.x.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Tom T, Brody M, Valabhji A, Turner L, Molgaard C, Rothrock J. Validation of a new instrument for determining migraine prevalence: the UCSD migraine questionnaire. Neurology. 1994;44(5):925–8.CrossRef

13.

Lainez MJ, Dominguez M, Rejas J, Palacios G, Arriaza E, Garcia-Garcia M, et al. Development and validation of the migraine screen questionnaire (MS-Q). Headache. 2005;45(10):1328–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.00265.x.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lainez MJ, Castillo J, Dominguez M, Palacios G, Diaz S, Rejas J. New uses of the migraine screen questionnaire (MS-Q): validation in the primary care setting and ability to detect hidden migraine. MS-Q in primary care. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-10-39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Austr J Paramed. 2010;8:3.

16.

Olesen J, Lipton RB. Migraine classification and diagnosis. International headache society criteria. Neurology. 1994;44(6 Suppl 4):S6–10.PubMed

17.

Jaccard J, Wan CK, Jaccard J. LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.

18.

Manzar MD, Zannat W, Hussain ME, Pandi-Perumal SR, Bahammam AS, Barakat D, et al. Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index in the young collegiate adults. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1550.CrossRef

19.

Manzar MD, Zannat W, Moiz JA, Spence DW, Pandi-Perumal SR, Bahammam AS, et al. Factor scoring models of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index: a comparative confirmatory factor analysis. Biol Rhythm Res. 2016;47(6):851–64.CrossRef

20.

Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef

21.

Manzar MD, BaHammam AS, Hameed UA, Spence DW, Pandi-Perumal SR, Moscovitch A, et al. Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):89.CrossRef

22.

Brown A, Croudace T. Scoring and estimating score precision using multidimensional IRT. In: Reise SP, Revicki DA, editors. Handbook of item response theory modeling: applications to typical performance assessment (a volume in the multivariate applications series). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. p. 307–33.

23.

Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 2017;78(5):762–80.

24.

Hancock GR. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Structural equation modeling: Present and future; 2001. p. 195–216.

25.

Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(2):137–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Muthen B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1992;45(1):19–30.CrossRef

27.

Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach's alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016;7:769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: sage; 2013.

29.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics, 5th. Needham Height: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

30.

Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.

31.

Woodhouse B, Jackson PH. Lower bounds for the reliability of the total score on a test composed of non-homogeneous items: II: a search procedure to locate the greatest lower bound. Psychometrika. 1977;42(4):579–91.CrossRef

32.

McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press; 2013.

33.

Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16(2):209–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. New York: Psychology Press; 2013.

35.

Mindell JA, Andrasik F. Headache classification and factor analysis with a pediatric population. Headache. 1987;27(2):96–101.CrossRef

36.

Wang J, Zhang B, Shen C, Zhang J, Wang W. Headache symptoms from migraine patients with and without aura through structure-validated self-reports. BMC Neurol. 2017;17(1):193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0973-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Measurement, and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc, http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-evaluation; 2018.

38.

Wang M, Batt K, Kessler C, Neff A, Iyer NN, Cooper DL, et al. Internal consistency and item-total correlation of patient-reported outcome instruments and hemophilia joint health score v2. 1 in US adult people with hemophilia: results from the pain, functional impairment, and quality of life (P-FiQ) study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1831.CrossRef

39.

Genizi J, Gordon S, Kerem NC, Srugo I, Shahar E, Ravid S. Primary headaches, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities in children and adolescents. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-14-54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Hooker WD, Raskin NH. Neuropsychologic alterations in classic and common migraine. Arch Neurol. 1986;43(7):709–12.CrossRef

41.

Villa TR, Correa Moutran AR, Sobirai Diaz LA, Pereira Pinto MM, Carvalho FA, Gabbai AA, et al. Visual attention in children with migraine: a controlled comparative study. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(6):631–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01767.x.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Young WB, Peres MF, Rozen TD. Modular headache theory. Cephalalgia. 2001;21(8):842–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.218254.x.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Howard MC, Jayne BS. An analysis of more than 1,400 articles, 900 scales, and 17 years of research: the state of scales in cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(3):181–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0418.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Migraine screen questionnaire: further psychometric evidence from categorical data methods
Authors: Md. Dilshad Manzar
Unaise Abdul Hameed
Mohammed Salahuddin
Mohammad Yunus Ali Khan
Dejen Nureye
Wakuma Wakene
Majed Alamri
Abdulrhman Albougami
Seithikuruppu R. PandiPerumal
Ahmed S. Bahammam
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Migraine
Headache
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01361-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Migraine screen questionnaire: further psychometric evidence from categorical data methods

Abstract

Background

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Reproducibility: reliability and agreement parameters of the Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 for use in patients with musculoskeletal shoulder pain

Correction to: Relationship of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour with health-related quality of life among breast cancer survivors

Correction to: Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5 L: population norms for the capital of Iran

Complete resolution of urinary incontinence with treatment improved the health-related quality of life of children with functional daytime urinary incontinence: a prospective study

Racial/ethnic differences in health-related quality of life among Hawaii adult population

Well-being profiles in adolescence: psychometric properties and latent profile analysis of the mental health continuum model – a methodological study