IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i2p147-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the Sensitivity and Construct Validity of 6 Utility Instruments in 7 Disease Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Angelo Iezzi
  • Munir A. Khan
  • Gang Chen
  • Aimee Maxwell

Abstract

Background. Health services that affect quality of life (QoL) are increasingly evaluated using cost utility analyses (CUA). These commonly employ one of a small number of multiattribute utility instruments (MAUI) to assess the effects of the health service on utility. However, the MAUI differ significantly, and the choice of instrument may alter the outcome of an evaluation. Aims. The present article has 2 objectives: 1) to compare the results of 3 measures of the sensitivity of 6 MAUI and the results of 6 tests of construct validity in 7 disease areas and 2) to rank the MAUI by each of the test results in each disease area and by an overall composite index constructed from the tests. Methods. Patients and the general public were administered a battery of instruments, which included the 6 MAUI, disease-specific QoL instruments (DSI), and 6 other comparator instruments. In each disease area, instrument sensitivity was measured 3 ways: by the unadjusted mean difference in utility between public and patient groups, by the value of the effect size, and by the correlation between MAUI and DSI scores. Content and convergent validity were tested by comparison of MAUI utilities and scores from the 6 comparator instruments. These included 2 measures of health state preferences, measures of subjective well-being and capabilities, and generic measures of physical and mental QoL derived from the SF-36. Results. The apparent sensitivity of instruments varied significantly with the measurement method and by disease area. Validation test results varied with the comparator instruments. Notwithstanding this variability, the 15D, AQoL-8D, and the SF-6D generally achieved better test results than the QWB and EQ-5D-5L.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Munir A. Khan & Gang Chen & Aimee Maxwell, 2016. "Measuring the Sensitivity and Construct Validity of 6 Utility Instruments in 7 Disease Areas," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 147-159, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:2:p:147-159
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15613522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15613522
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15613522?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helliwell, John & Layard, Richard & Sachs, Jeffrey, 2012. "World happiness report," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47487, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Shitong Xie & Jing Wu & Gang Chen, 2024. "Comparative performance and mapping algorithms between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among the Chinese general population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 7-19, February.
    2. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    3. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Billingsley Kaambwa & Nikki McCaffrey & Jeff Richardson, 2018. "Empirical Comparison Between Capability and Two Health-Related Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 175-190, November.
    4. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    5. Myles-Jay Linton & Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Michael Schlander & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Jasper Ubels & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 651-673, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    2. Sarah Flèche & Richard Layard, 2017. "Do More of Those in Misery Suffer from Poverty, Unemployment or Mental Illness?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 27-41, February.
    3. Ravallion, Martin, 2019. "Global inequality when unequal countries create unequal people," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 85-97.
    4. Cubi-Molla, P. & De Vries, J. & Devlin, N., 2013. "A Study of the Relationship Between Health and Subjective Well-being in Parkinson’s Disease Patients," Working Papers 13/12, Department of Economics, City University London.
    5. Andrés Mauricio Vargas Pérez, 2013. "Bienestar subjetivo y políticas públicas de los gobiernos locales," Revista de Economía del Caribe 14755, Universidad del Norte.
    6. Masood Badri & Mugheer Al Khaili & Guang Yang & Muna Al Bahar & Asma Al Rashdi, 2022. "Examining the Structural Effect of Working Time on Well-Being: Evidence from Abu Dhabi," International Journal of Social Sciences, European Research Center, vol. 11(2), pages 24-44, September.
    7. Lieze Sohier, 2019. "Do Involuntary Longer Working Careers Reduce Well-being?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(1), pages 171-196, March.
    8. Firas M. Sharaf, 2023. "Assessment of Urban Sustainability—The Case of Amman City in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Xiangdan Piao & Xinxin Ma & Shunsuke Managi, 2021. "Impact of the Intra-household Education Gap on Wives’ and Husbands’ Well-Being: Evidence from Cross-Country Microdata," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 111-136, July.
    10. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn & Joan Maya Mazelis, 2017. "More Unequal in Income, More Unequal in Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 953-975, July.
    11. Myrna Leticia Bravo-Olivas & Rosa María Chávez-Dagostino & Christopher D. Malcolm & Rodrigo Espinoza-Sánchez, 2015. "Notes on the Quality of Life of Artisanal Small-Scale Fishermen along the Pacific Coast of Jalisco, México," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-23, May.
    12. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    13. Edsel L. Beja, 2016. "Measuring economic ill-being using objective and subjective indicators: evidence for the Philippines," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 151-166, March.
    14. Zhang, Yongchao & Torre, André & Ehrlich, Marianne, 2023. "The impact of Chinese government promoted homestead transfer on labor migration and household's well-being: A study in three rural areas," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Haya Al-Ajlani & Luc Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2020. "Does Well-Being Vary with an Individual-Specific Weighting Scheme?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1285-1302, November.
    16. Feeny, Simon & McDonald, Lachlan & Posso, Alberto, 2014. "Are Poor People Less Happy? Findings from Melanesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 448-459.
    17. Jiayuan Li & John Raine, 2014. "The Time Trend of Life Satisfaction in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 409-427, April.
    18. Pascal Courty & Merwan Engineer, 2019. "A pure hedonic theory of utility and status: Unhappy but efficient invidious comparisons," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 21(4), pages 601-621, August.
    19. Frijters, Paul & Clark, Andrew E. & Krekel, Christian & Layard, Richard, 2020. "A happy choice: wellbeing as the goal of government," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 126-165, July.
    20. Mike Pennock, 2016. "Slower Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being in the Canadian Context: A Discussion Paper," CSLS Research Reports 2016-09, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.

    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:36:y:2016:i:2:p:147-159. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.