Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2009

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

Auteurs: David Feeny, Nathalie Huguet, Bentson H. McFarland, Mark S. Kaplan

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2009

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) by exploring relationships among several well-recognized measures of mental health, the K6 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and the HUI3 in a large, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling subjects. Known-group comparisons were also included in the validation process.

Methods

We specified a priori hypotheses about the expected degree of association between the measures. Correlation coefficients of <0.1 were defined as negligible, 0.1 to <0.3 as small, 0.3 to <0.5 as medium, and ≥0.5 as large. Data from the Statistics Canada National Population Health Survey (NPHS) Cycle 2 (1996/97) for respondents 20 years of age or older (n = 66,435) were used to test the a priori hypotheses.

Results

In 58.1% of cases, predictions of association were correct. Predictions were off by one category in 38.9% of cases and a priori predictions were off by two categories in 3.0% of cases.

Conclusions

Our results provide evidence supporting the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 emotion and HUI3 in a nationally representative sample of the community-dwelling population. The results also provide further evidence of the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 in assessing population health.

vorige artikel The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble

Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. doi:10.3109/07853890109002087.PubMedCrossRef

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI^®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 375–384. doi:10.3109/07853890109002092.PubMedCrossRef

Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI^®): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 54. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.PubMedCrossRef

Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006074.PubMedCrossRef

Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., et al. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(2), 184–189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184.PubMedCrossRef

Cairney, J., Veldhuizen, S., Wade, T. J., Kurdyak, P., & Streiner, D. L. (2007). Evaluation of 2 measures of psychological distress as screeners for depression in the general population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(2), 111–120.

Furukawa, T. A., Kessler, R. C., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (2003). The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine, 33(2), 357–362. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006700.PubMedCrossRef

Patten, S. B., Brandon-Christie, J., Devji, J., & Sedmak, B. (2000). Performance of the composite international diagnostic interview short form for major depression in a community sample. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 21(2), 68–72.PubMed

Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900. doi:10.1023/A:1008996223999.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

12.

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 396–408. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.396.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Tambay, J. L., & Catlin, G. (1995). Sample design of the National Population Health Survey. Health Reports, 7(1), 29–42.PubMed

15.

Maddigan, S. L., Feeny, D. H., & Johnson, J. A. (2005). Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1311–1320. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-6640-4.PubMedCrossRef

16.

World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organization.

17.

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

18.

Kessler, R. C., & Wang, P. S. (2008). The descriptive epidemiology of commonly occurring mental disorders in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 115–129.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

21.

Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.

22.

Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 705–714. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.CrossRef

23.

Blanchard, C., Feeny, D., Mahon, J. L., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Stitt, L., et al. (2004). Is the Health Utilities Index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 339–348. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000018479.52075.bf.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., Ferrie, P. J., Griffith, L. E., & Townsend, M. (1996). Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 35–46. doi:10.1007/BF00435967.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., Ferrie, P. J., Griffith, L. E., & Townsend, M. (1996). Measuring quality of life in the parents of children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 27–34. doi:10.1007/BF00435966.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Feeny, D. H., Farris, K., Côté, I., Johnson, J. A., Tsuyuki, R. T., & Eng, K. (2005). A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 138–141. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.005.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Feeny, D. H. (2005). Preference-based measures: Utility and quality-adjusted life years. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 405–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Vasiliadis, H. M., Lesage, A., Adair, C., Wang, P. S., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Do Canada and the United States differ in prevalence of depression and utilization of services? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 58(1), 63–71. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.1.63.

Titel: The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys
Auteurs: David Feeny
Nathalie Huguet
Bentson H. McFarland
Mark S. Kaplan
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9457-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2009

Do not test for baseline imbalances unless they are known to be present?

Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption

The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble

Continence specialists use of quality of life information in routine practice: a national survey of practitioners

Quality of life of patients with irritable bowel syndrome in Korea

Normative data of the SF-12 health survey with validation using postmyocardial infarction patients in the Dutch population