Katarzyna Młyńczak1,2, Dominik Golicki3,4. 1. Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Warsaw, 1b Banacha St, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. mlynczak.kasia@gmail.com. 2. HealthQuest spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Sp. K, Warsaw, Poland. mlynczak.kasia@gmail.com. 3. Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Warsaw, 1b Banacha St, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. 4. HealthQuest spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Sp. K, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aim to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire with the EQ-5D-3L version and EQ VAS, based on a survey conducted in a sample representing the general adult population of Poland. METHODS: The survey comprised health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires: EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, SF-12 and EQ-5D-3L, together with demographic and socio-economic characteristics items. The EQ-5D index values were estimated based on a directly measured value set for Poland. The following psychometric properties were analysed: feasibility, distribution of responses, redistribution from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L, inconsistencies, ceiling effects, informativity power and construct validity. We proposed a novel approach to the construct validity assessment, based on the use of a machine learning technique known as the random forest algorithm. RESULTS: From March to June 2014, 3978 subjects (aged 18-87, 53.2% female) were surveyed. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire had a lower ceiling effect compared to EQ-5D-3L (38.0% vs 46.6%). Redistribution from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L was similar for each dimension, and the mean inconsistency did not exceed 5%. The results of known-groups validation confirmed the hypothesis concerning the relationship between the EQ-5D index values and age, sex and occurrence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L, in comparison with its EQ-5D-3L equivalent, showed similar or better psychometric properties within the general population of a country. We assessed the construct validity of the questionnaire with a novel approach that was based on a machine learning technique known as the random forest algorithm.
PURPOSE: We aim to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire with the EQ-5D-3L version and EQ VAS, based on a survey conducted in a sample representing the general adult population of Poland. METHODS: The survey comprised health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires: EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, SF-12 and EQ-5D-3L, together with demographic and socio-economic characteristics items. The EQ-5D index values were estimated based on a directly measured value set for Poland. The following psychometric properties were analysed: feasibility, distribution of responses, redistribution from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L, inconsistencies, ceiling effects, informativity power and construct validity. We proposed a novel approach to the construct validity assessment, based on the use of a machine learning technique known as the random forest algorithm. RESULTS: From March to June 2014, 3978 subjects (aged 18-87, 53.2% female) were surveyed. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire had a lower ceiling effect compared to EQ-5D-3L (38.0% vs 46.6%). Redistribution from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L was similar for each dimension, and the mean inconsistency did not exceed 5%. The results of known-groups validation confirmed the hypothesis concerning the relationship between the EQ-5D index values and age, sex and occurrence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L, in comparison with its EQ-5D-3L equivalent, showed similar or better psychometric properties within the general population of a country. We assessed the construct validity of the questionnaire with a novel approach that was based on a machine learning technique known as the random forest algorithm.
Entities:
Keywords:
EQ-5D; EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; General population; Health-related quality of life; Validity
Authors: Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Dimitris Niakas; John Yfantopoulos; Christina Dimitrakaki; Yannis Tountas Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Hui-Chu Lang; Linghsiang Chuang; Shiow-Ching Shun; Ching-Lin Hsieh; Chung-Fu Lan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthew T D Dyer; Kimberley A Goldsmith; Linda S Sharples; Martin J Buxton Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Admassu N Lamu; Lars Björkman; Harald J Hamre; Terje Alræk; Frauke Musial; Bjarne Robberstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Chiara Costa; Michele Teodoro; Annalisa De Vita; Federica Giambò; Carmela Mento; Maria Rosaria Anna Muscatello; Angela Alibrandi; Sebastiano Italia; Concettina Fenga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.614