Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2008

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

Auteurs: Graeme Hawthorne, Konstancja Densley, Julie F. Pallant, Duncan Mortimer, Leonie Segal

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2008

Abstract

Background

Utility scores for use in cost-utility analysis may be imputed from the SF-36 health instrument using various techniques, typically regression analysis. This paper explored imputation using partial credit Rasch analysis.

Method

Data from the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument validation study were re-analysed (n = 996 inpatients, outpatients and a community sample). For each AQoL item, factor analysis identified those SF-36 items forming a unidimensional scale. Rasch analysis located scale logit scores for these SF-36 items. The logit scores were used to assign AQoL item scores. The standard AQoL scoring algorithm was then applied to obtain the utility scores.

Results

Many SF-36 items were limited predictors of AQoL items; some items from both instruments obtained disordered thresholds. All imputed scores were consistent with the AQoL model and fell within AQoL score boundaries. The explained variance between imputed and true AQoL scores was 61%.

Discussion

Rasch-imputed mapping, unlike many regression-based algorithms, produced results consistent with the axioms of utility measurement, while the proportion of explained variance was similar to regression-based modelling. Item properties on both instruments implied that some items should be revised using Rasch analysis. The methods and results may be used by researchers needing to impute utility scores from SF-36 health scores.

vorige artikel Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index

volgende artikel Personality and EQ-5D scores among individuals with chronic conditions

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370. doi:10.3109/07853890109002090.PubMedCrossRef

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R., & Tancredi, D. J. (2003). Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Medical Care, 41, 1277–1283. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000093480.58308.D8.PubMedCrossRef

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R., Tancredi, D. J., & Jia, H. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24, 247–254. doi:10.1177/0272989X04265477.PubMedCrossRef

Fryback, D. G., Lawrence, W. F., Martin, P. A., Klein, R., & Klein, B. E. (1997). Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Medical Decision Making, 17, 1–9. doi:10.1177/0272989X9701700101.PubMedCrossRef

Mortimer, D., Segal, L., Hawthorne, G., & Harris, A. (2007). Item-based versus subscale-based mappings from the SF-36 to a preference-based quality of life measure. Value in Health, 10, 398–407. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00194.x.PubMedCrossRef

Nichol, M. B., Sengupta, N., & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21, 105–112. doi:10.1177/02729890122062352.PubMedCrossRef

Segal, L., Day, S. E., Chapman, A. B., & Osborne, R. H. (2004). Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority setting model. The Medical Journal of Australia, 180, S11–S17.PubMed

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. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1115–1128. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28, 66–89. doi:10.1177/0272989X07309642.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D. G., & Borgquist, L. (1999). The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Medical Decision Making, 19, 128–140. doi:10.1177/0272989X9901900203.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Brazier, J. E., Kolotkin, R. L., Crosby, R. D., & Williams, G. R. (2004). Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value in Health, 7, 490–498. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74012.x.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gray, A. M., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26, 18–29. doi:10.1177/0272989X05284108.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554. doi:10.1086/214483.CrossRef

16.

Wright, B. D. (1989). Rasch model from Thurstone’s scaling requirements. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 2, 13–14.

17.

Andrich, D. (1985). An elaboration of Guttman scaling with Rasch models for measurement. In N. Brandon-Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 33–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Coste, J., & Pouchot, J. (2003). A grey zone for quantitative diagnostic and screening tests. International Journal of Epidemiology, 32, 304–313. doi:10.1093/ije/dyg054.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Rasch, G. (1960). In B. Rasc (Ed.), Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (p. 184). Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

20.

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174. doi:10.1007/BF02296272.CrossRef

21.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224. doi:10.1023/A:1008815005736.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. doi:10.1007/BF02293814.CrossRef

23.

Mokken, R. J., & Lewis, C. (1982). A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 417–430. doi:10.1177/014662168200600404.CrossRef

24.

Zhu, W. (1998). Test equating: what, why, how? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 11–23.PubMed

25.

Dobrez, D., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Lai, J. S., & Nickolov, A. (2007). Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy—general. Value in Health, 10, 266–272. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00181.x.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1203–1214. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00112-7.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Pickard, A. S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G., Rosenbloom, S., & Cella, D. (2007). Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Medical Care, 45, 812–819. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31805371aa.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Hawthorne, G., & Richardson, J. (2001). Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 1, 215–228.CrossRef

30.

Chan, K.-Y., Drasgow, F., & Sawin, L. L. (1999). What is the shelf life of a test? The effect of time on the psychometrics of a cognitive ability test battery. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 610–619. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.610.CrossRef

31.

Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis (pp. 24–27). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

33.

Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168. doi:10.1177/1094428103251541.CrossRef

34.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x.CrossRef

35.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., p. 966). New York: Harper Collins.

36.

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.287.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

38.

Stone, M., & Yumoto, F. (2004). The effect of sample size for estimating Rasch/IRT parameters with dichotomous items. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 48–61.PubMed

39.

Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328–331.

40.

Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 1–18. doi:10.1348/014466506X96931.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Hambleton, R. K., Jones, R. W., & Rogers, H. J. (1993). Influence of item parameter estimation errors in test development. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 143–155. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb01071.x.CrossRef

42.

SPSS Inc. (2004). SPSS for Windows, version 13.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

43.

Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2005). RUMM2020. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.

44.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

45.

Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 85–94. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9155-3.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods. Equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44, S39–S49. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000245452.48613.45.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 19–31. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis
Auteurs: Graeme Hawthorne
Konstancja Densley
Julie F. Pallant
Duncan Mortimer
Leonie Segal
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9395-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Discussion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2008

How consistent are health utility values?

Personality and EQ-5D scores among individuals with chronic conditions

Reliability in the ratings of quality of life between parents and their children of school age with cerebral palsy

Evaluation of the American version of the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30)

Longitudinal factorial invariance of the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales Child Self-Report Version: One year prospective evidence from the California State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice