Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 463-473

  Janssen, M F ^a,b   Birnie, E ^a,c   Bonsel, G J ^a,b,c  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b EuroQol Group   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health status; Health related quality of life; Methodology; Psychometrics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; DEPRESSION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL MOBILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF CARE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ANXIETY; DEPRESSION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 41149120959     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Brooks, R., Rabin, R. E., & de Charro, F. Th. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.
2. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (1999). The health utilities index: An update. Quality of Life Newsletter, 22, 8-9.
3. Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., & Booth, A. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3, 1-164.
4. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271-292.
5. Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 317-325.
6. Macran, S., Weatherly, H., & Kind, P. (2003). Measuring population health-a comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care, 41, 218-231.
7. Wu, A. W., Jacobson, K. L., Frick, K. D., Clark, R., Revicki, D. A., Freedberg, K. A., Scott-Lennox, J., & Feinberg, J. (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the EuroQol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11, 273-282.
8. Myers, C., & Wilks, D. (1999). Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Quality of Life Research, 8, 9-16.
9. Willige van de, G., Wiersma, D., Nienhuis, F. J., & Jenner, J. A. (2005). Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric patients: a comparison between EuroQol (EQ-5D) and WHOQoL. Quality of Life Research, 14, 441-451.
10. Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736-749.
11. Houle, C., Bertheloth, C. M., & Health Analysis, Modeling Group (2000). Head-to-head comparison of the health utilities index mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the population living in private households in Canada. Quality of Life Newsletter, 24, 5-6.
12. Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQol 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7, 311-322.
13. Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14, 119-132.
14. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873-884.
15. Kaarlola, A., Pettila, V., & Kekki, P. (2004). Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Medicine, 30, 2245-2252.
16. Szabo, S. (1996). World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) assessment instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and of life and pharmaeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 355-362). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
17. Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J. B., Brazier, J., Bullinger, M., Fukuhara, S., Kaasa, S., Leplege, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Sullivan, M., & Wood-Dauphinee, S. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 933-944.
18. Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three level system with a five level version. Value in Health. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x
19. Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45, 259-263.
20. Bonsel, G. J., & van Agt, H. M. E. (1993). The number of levels in the descriptive system. In J. J. van Busschbach, G. J. Bonsel, & F. Th. de Charro (Eds.), Book of EuroQol meeting proceedings (pp. 115-120). Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
21. Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10-13.
22. Nishisato, S., & Torii, Y. (1970). Effects of categorizing continuous normal variables on the product-moment correlation. The Japanese Psychological Research, 13, 45-49.
23. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15.
24. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
25. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. W. (2003). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Cardinet, J., Tourneur, Y., & Allal, L. (1981). Extension of generalizability theory and its application in educational measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 183-204.
27. Krabbe, P. F., Essink-Bot, M. L., & Bonsel, G. J. (1996). On the equivalence of collectively and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgments of health states. Medical Decision Making, 16, 120-132.
28. Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 313-320.
29. Spector, P. E. (1976). Choosing response categories for summated rating scales. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 374-375.
30. Pickard, A. S., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S., Bonsel, G. J., & Janssen, M. F. (2007). Come together: Use of IRT models to derive preference-based algorithms for a 5 level version of the EQ-5D. Medical Care, 45, 259-263.
31. Kind, P. (2007). Size matters: EQ-5D in transition. Medical Care, 45, 809-811.