. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 7.

Published in final edited form as: Palliat Support Care. 2020 Oct;18(5):544–556. doi: 10.1017/S1478951520000152

Table 5.

Summary of DIF hypotheses and analyses

Item	DIF Hypotheses^a	IRTPRO	lordif	Magnitude (NCDIF)	Effect Size (T1)
1. Doctor’s attention to patient’s description of symptoms	3			0.0017	0.0270
2. Availability of doctors to the family				0.0001	−0.0013
3. Coordination of care	4		U	0.0017	−0.0146
4. Time required to make diagnosis				0.0010	0.0000
5. The way the family is included in treatment and care decisions	7 Minority group less satisfied	NU^{* U}^*	U^*	0.0057	−0.0450
6. Information given about how to manage the patient’s pain		U	NU^*	0.0031	0.0074
7. Information given about the patient’s tests	4 Minority group less satisfied	U	NU^; U^	0.0047	−0.0407
8. How thoroughly the doctor assesses the patient’s symptoms	4			0.0020	0.0213
9. The way tests and treatments are followed up by the doctor				0.0044	0.0342
10. Availability of the doctor to the patient				0.0005	0.0095

The numbers in bold are the number positing DIF. Not all provided a direction to the hypothesis; only those with a direction are presented.

NU= Non-uniform DIF involving the discrimination parameters; U=Uniform DIF involving the location parameters

Significant after Bonferroni correction

All NCDIF values were smaller than the threshold (0.0240); the range was from 0.0001 to 0.0057 and none of the T1 statistics were significant.