BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to compare the validity of a generic preference-based Quality of Life (QoL) instrument for adults to that of a generic child-specific QoL instrument in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 data were collected using a questionnaire survey performed among parents with a child or adolescent diagnosed with ADHD. The measurements were compared to assess (dis)similarities of the instruments' constructs and responsiveness to different health states. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to identify factors underlying the constructs of both instruments. Instruments' index scores of respondents with different treatment and comorbidity profiles were compared using Student's t tests. Cohen's effect sizes were calculated for an indirect comparison of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminating ability. Separate analyses were performed in children aged 8-12 and 13-18 years. RESULTS: A strong relation was found between the EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 index scores. However correlations between EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items were moderate or low. The PCA identified five separate factors of quality of life. A physical and a mental factor included a combination of three EQ-5D dimensions and six KIDSCREEN-10 items; the remaining EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items constituted complementary factors without any overlap between the separate instruments. Scores of both instruments differed significantly according to respondents' response to treatment and comorbidity profile. Cohen's effect sizes indicated comparable results of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight that the instruments measure different constructs of QoL in children with ADHD. Despite this, the analyses showed comparable responsiveness and discriminative ability of the instruments. These results suggest that for economic evaluations, the EQ-5D is an appropriate and valid instrument for measuring QoL in children.
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to compare the validity of a generic preference-based Quality of Life (QoL) instrument for adults to that of a generic child-specific QoL instrument in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 data were collected using a questionnaire survey performed among parents with a child or adolescent diagnosed with ADHD. The measurements were compared to assess (dis)similarities of the instruments' constructs and responsiveness to different health states. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to identify factors underlying the constructs of both instruments. Instruments' index scores of respondents with different treatment and comorbidity profiles were compared using Student's t tests. Cohen's effect sizes were calculated for an indirect comparison of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminating ability. Separate analyses were performed in children aged 8-12 and 13-18 years. RESULTS: A strong relation was found between the EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 index scores. However correlations between EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items were moderate or low. The PCA identified five separate factors of quality of life. A physical and a mental factor included a combination of three EQ-5D dimensions and six KIDSCREEN-10 items; the remaining EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items constituted complementary factors without any overlap between the separate instruments. Scores of both instruments differed significantly according to respondents' response to treatment and comorbidity profile. Cohen's effect sizes indicated comparable results of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight that the instruments measure different constructs of QoL in children with ADHD. Despite this, the analyses showed comparable responsiveness and discriminative ability of the instruments. These results suggest that for economic evaluations, the EQ-5D is an appropriate and valid instrument for measuring QoL in children.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Robert J Klaassen; Murray Krahn; Isabelle Gaboury; Joanna Hughes; Ronald Anderson; Paul Grundy; S Kaiser Ali; Lawrence Jardine; Oussama Abla; Mariana Silva; Dorothy Barnard; Mario Cappelli Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; Michael Erhart; Luis Rajmil; Michael Herdman; Pascal Auquier; Jeanet Bruil; Mick Power; Wolfgang Duer; Thomas Abel; Ladislav Czemy; Joanna Mazur; Agnes Czimbalmos; Yannis Tountas; Curt Hagquist; Jean Kilroe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jean-Eric Tarride; Natasha Burke; Matthias Bischof; Robert B Hopkins; Linda Goeree; Kaitryn Campbell; Feng Xie; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: M Fekkes; N C Theunissen; E Brugman; S Veen; E G Verrips; H M Koopman; T Vogels; J M Wit; S P Verloove-Vanhorick Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2000 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: James W Varni; Christine A Limbers; Katie Neighbors; Kris Schulz; Judith E C Lieu; Robert W Heffer; Krista Tuzinkiewicz; Rita Mangione-Smith; Jerry J Zimmerman; Estella M Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-08-22 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Peter H Silverstone; Marni Bercov; Victoria Y M Suen; Andrea Allen; Ivor Cribben; Jodi Goodrick; Stu Henry; Catherine Pryce; Pieter Langstraat; Katherine Rittenbach; Samprita Chakraborty; Rutger C Engels; Christopher McCabe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jochen O Mierau; Daphne Kann-Weedage; Pieter J Hoekstra; Lisan Spiegelaar; Danielle E M C Jansen; Karin M Vermeulen; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Barbara J van den Hoofdakker; Erik Buskens; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Carmen D Dirksen; Annabeth P Groenman Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Silke Wiegand-Grefe; Bonnie Filter; Mareike Busmann; Reinhold Kilian; Klaus-Thomas Kronmüller; Martin Lambert; Christine Norra; Kai von Klitzing; Kurt Albermann; Sibylle Maria Winter; Anne Daubmann; Karl Wegscheider; Angela Plass-Christl Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Tessa Peasgood; Anupam Bhardwaj; Katie Biggs; John E Brazier; David Coghill; Cindy L Cooper; David Daley; Cyril De Silva; Val Harpin; Paul Hodgkins; Amulya Nadkarni; Juliana Setyawan; Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Leontine W Ten Hoopen; Pieter F A de Nijs; Jorieke Duvekot; Kirstin Greaves-Lord; Manon H J Hillegers; Werner B F Brouwer; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2020-01
Authors: Johannes Boettcher; Bonnie Filter; Jonas Denecke; Amra Hot; Anne Daubmann; Antonia Zapf; Karl Wegscheider; Jan Zeidler; J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg; Monika Bullinger; Miriam Rassenhofer; Michael Schulte-Markwort; Silke Wiegand-Grefe Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 2.497