Literature DB >> 17712251

Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D.

A Simon Pickard1, Thomas Kohlmann, Mathieu F Janssen, Gouke Bonsel, Sarah Rosenbloom, David Cella.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Expansion of the EQ-5D health state classifier to 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) has been proposed to improve discriminative and evaluative properties, but current preference-based algorithms were developed for a 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) structure. The objectives were to examine equivalency of meaning between 3L and 5L response systems, and to psychometrically derive a system of weights that facilitate conversion of 3L preference-based algorithms to a 5L system.
METHODS: Rasch models were used to examine the equivalency of the 3L and 5L systems using 2 datasets where health status was assessed using the 3L and 5L: a Dutch study of primarily hypothetical health state assessments and a US-based multicenter study of 423 cancer patients. Category-specific mean values of latent person parameters (using maximum likelihood estimation) for the levels of the 3L and 5L systems were estimated.
RESULTS: Means on the latent continuum pertaining to level 3 in the 5L system and level 2 in the 3L (some problems) were similar for both datasets, suggesting equivalence of these levels. Extremes of the 5L response structure consistently broadened the measurement continuum. By anchoring "no problems" as 0 disutility, disutility weights from EQ-5D-3L were transformed into weights for EQ-5D-5L using ratios of logit distances between person means for 5L and 3L calibrated for each dimension using the Rasch model.
CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the rich potential for modern psychometric techniques both to examine equivalency when health status measures are modified as well as to inform preference-based measurement systems using existing value sets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17712251     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31805371aa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  24 in total

1.  The English and Chinese versions of the five-level EuroQoL Group's five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Chun Fan Lee; Raymond Ng; Nan Luo; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population.

Authors:  Andreas Hinz; Thomas Kohlmann; Yve Stöbel-Richter; Markus Zenger; Elmar Brähler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Holistic preferences for 1-year health profiles describing fluctuations in health: the case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Martine Hoogendoorn; Leida M Lamers
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne; Konstancja Densley; Julie F Pallant; Duncan Mortimer; Leonie Segal
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Authors:  Martina Garau; Koonal K Shah; Anne R Mason; Qing Wang; Adrian Towse; Michael F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece.

Authors:  John N Yfantopoulos; Athanasios E Chantzaras
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-06-04

7.  Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; A Simon Pickard; Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing.

Authors:  Juan Zhu; Xin-Xin Yan; Cheng-Cheng Liu; Hong Wang; Le Wang; Su-Mei Cao; Xian-Zhen Liao; Yun-Feng Xi; Yong Ji; Lin Lei; Hai-Fan Xiao; Hai-Jing Guan; Wen-Qiang Wei; Min Dai; Wanqing Chen; Ju-Fang Shi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B.

Authors:  Y X Jia; F Q Cui; L Li; D L Zhang; G M Zhang; F Z Wang; X H Gong; H Zheng; Z H Wu; N Miao; X J Sun; L Zhang; J J Lv; F Yang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.