Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The EQ-5D-Y is a copyrighted instrument. All requests for EQ-5D-Y translations should be sent to the EuroQol Executive Office in Rotterdam, the Netherlands (email@example.com).
To examine the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the newly developed EQ-5D-Y.
The EQ-5D-Y was administered in population samples of children and adolescents in Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Percentages of missing values and reported problems were calculated. Test–retest reliability was determined. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients with other generic measures of HRQOL were calculated. Known groups’ validity was examined by comparing groups with a priori expected differences in HRQOL.
Between 91 and 100% of the respondents provided valid scorings. Sweden had the lowest proportion of reported problems (1–24.9% across EQ-5D-Y dimensions), with the highest proportions in South Africa (2.8–47.3%) and Italy (4.3–39.0%). Percentages of agreement in test–retest reliability ranged between 69.8 and 99.7% in the EQ-5D-Y dimensions; Kappa coefficients were up to 0.67. Correlation coefficients with other measures of self-rated health indicated convergent validity (up to r = −0.56). Differences between groups classified according to presence of chronic conditions, self-rated overall health and psychological problems provided preliminary evidence of known groups’ validity.
Results provide preliminary evidence of the instrument’s feasibility, reliability and validity. Further study is required in clinical samples and for possible future applications in economic analyses.
Sullivan, M. (2003). The new subjective medicine: Taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Social Sciences & Medicine, 56, 1595–1604. CrossRef
Clarke, S., & Eiser, C. (2004). The measurement of health-related quality of life (QoL) in paediatric clinical trials: A systematic review. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 66. CrossRef
Harter, S., & Whitesell, N. R. (1989). Developmental changes in children’s understanding of single, multiple and blended emotion concepts. In E. Saarni & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Children’s understanding of emotion (pp. 81–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burström, K., Cavrini, G., Egmar, A.-C., et al. (2010). Development of the EQ-5D-Y: A child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.
Currie, C., Samdal, O., Boyce, W., et al. (Eds.) (2001). Health behaviour in school-aged children: A WHO Cross-National Study (HBSC), research protocol for the 2001/2002 survey. Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU), University of Edinburgh.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., & the European KIDSCREEN Group. (2006). The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires—Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents—Handbook. Lengerich: Papst Science Publisher.
Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concern. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613–619. CrossRef
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McCraw-Hill.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316, 736–741. PubMed
Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D valuation sets: An inventory, comparative review and users’ guide. Rotterdam: EuroQol Foundation, Springer.
Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2009). A uniform Time Trade Off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the lead time approach. Economics Discussion Paper 09/08, City University. www.city.ac.uk/economics/dps/discussion_papers/0908.pdf.
Sculpher, M., & Gafni, A. (2002). Recognising diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Authors Reply. Health Economics, 11, 653. CrossRef
- Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study
Pedro R. Olivares
- Springer Netherlands