IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i2p260-269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standard Error of Measurement of 5 Health Utility Indexes across the Range of Health for Use in Estimating Reliability and Responsiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Mari Palta
  • Han-Yang Chen
  • Robert M. Kaplan
  • David Feeny
  • Dasha Cherepanov
  • Dennis G. Fryback

Abstract

Background . Standard errors of measurement (SEMs) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) indexes are not well characterized. SEM is needed to estimate responsiveness statistics, and is a component of reliability. Purpose . To estimate the SEM of 5 HRQoL indexes. Design . The National Health Measurement Study (NHMS) was a population-based survey. The Clinical Outcomes and Measurement of Health Study (COMHS) provided repeated measures. Subjects . A total of 3844 randomly selected adults from the noninstitutionalized population aged 35 to 89 y in the contiguous United States and 265 cataract patients. Measurements . The SF6-36v2â„¢, QWB-SA, EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 were included. An item-response theory approach captured joint variation in indexes into a composite construct of health (theta). The authors estimated 1) the test-retest standard deviation (SEM-TR) from COMHS, 2) the structural standard deviation (SEM-S) around theta from NHMS, and 3) reliability coefficients. Results . SEM-TR was 0.068 (SF-6D), 0.087 (QWB-SA), 0.093 (EQ-5D), 0.100 (HUI2), and 0.134 (HUI3), whereas SEM-S was 0.071, 0.094, 0.084, 0.074, and 0.117, respectively. These yield reliability coefficients 0.66 (COMHS) and 0.71 (NHMS) for SF-6D, 0.59 and 0.64 for QWB-SA, 0.61 and 0.70 for EQ-5D, 0.64 and 0.80 for HUI2, and 0.75 and 0.77 for HUI3, respectively. The SEM varied across levels of health, especially for HUI2, HUI3, and EQ-5D, and was influenced by ceiling effects. Limitations . Repeated measures were 5 mo apart, and estimated theta contained measurement error. Conclusions . The 2 types of SEM are similar and substantial for all the indexes and vary across health.

Suggested Citation

  • Mari Palta & Han-Yang Chen & Robert M. Kaplan & David Feeny & Dasha Cherepanov & Dennis G. Fryback, 2011. "Standard Error of Measurement of 5 Health Utility Indexes across the Range of Health for Use in Estimating Reliability and Responsiveness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 260-269, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:260-269
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10380925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10380925
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10380925?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalia Hernández-Segura & Alba Marcos-Delgado & Arrate Pinto-Carral & Tania Fernández-Villa & Antonio J. Molina, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Instruments and Mobility: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:260-269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.