Evaluating the Equivalence of Health Care Ratings By Whites and Hispanics

Published in: Medical Care, v. 38, no. 5, May 2000, p. 517-527

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2000

by Leo S. Morales, Steven Reise, Ron D. Hays

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the equivalence of a health care ratings scale administered to non-Hispanic white and Hispanic survey respondents. METHODS: The authors sent 18,840 questionnaires to a random sample of patients receiving medical care from a physician group association concentrated in the western United States; 7,093 were returned (59% adjusted response rate). Approximately 90% of survey respondents self-identified as white/Caucasian (n = 5,508) or Hispanic/Latino (n = 713). Interpersonal and technical aspects of medical care were assessed with 9 items, all administered with a 7-point response format: the best, excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, and very poor, with a not applicable option. Item response theory procedures were used to test for differential item functioning between white and Hispanic respondents. RESULTS: Hispanics were found to be significantly more dissatisfied with care than whites (effect size=0.27; P <0.05). Of the 9 test items, 2 had statistically significant differential item functioning (P <0.05): reassurance and support offered by your doctors and staff and quality of examinations received. However, summative scale scores and test characteristic curves for whites and Hispanics were similar whether or not these items were included in the scale. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some differences in item functioning, valid satisfaction-with-care comparisons between whites and Hispanics are possible. Thus, disparities in satisfaction ratings between whites and Hispanics should not be ascribed to measurement bias but should be viewed as arising from actual differences in experiences with care.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.