IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i8d10.1007_s10198-022-01435-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-Y-5L) in comparison with three-level (EQ-5D-Y-3L) in children and adolescents with scoliosis

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaer Lin

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

  • Carlos King Ho Wong

    (The University of Hong Kong
    The University of Hong Kong SAR)

  • Jason Pui Yin Cheung

    (The University of Hong Kong)

  • Prudence Wing Hang Cheung

    (The University of Hong Kong)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objectives To assess the psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D-Y-5L (Y-5L) in comparisons with EQ-5D-Y-3L (Y-3L) administered by caregivers of patients with juvenile (JIS) or adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A consecutive sample of caregivers of JIS or AIS patients were recruited. Redistribution property, ceiling effects, and discriminative power were examined. Known-group validity was determined by examining their ability to detect differences across clinical known groups. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for EQ-VAS score and Gwet’s agreement coefficient (GAC) and percentage agreement (PA) for dimension responses. Furthermore, subgroups were analyzed for comparing test–retest reliability. Results A total of 130 caregivers were involved in the study. Consistencies between proxy-reported Y-3L and Y-5L were very high for all dimensions (93.8–99.2%). The ceiling effect in the Y-5L was slightly reduced in four dimensions (AR: 0.8–2.3%) whereas increased in “Having pain/discomfort”. Greater informativity was found in the Y-5L than the Y-3L. In known-group comparisons of curvature magnitude, curvature type, and treatment modality, Y-5L and Y-3L dimension scales showed hypothesized results. For example, more full-health responses were found in the mild Cobb angle group (Y-5L: 63.1%; Y-3L: 62.2%) than the severe Cobb angle group (Y-5L: 55.6%, Y-3L: 55.6%). EQ-VAS score exhibited low test–retest reliability (ICC: 0.41), whereas dimension scales of both instruments showed satisfactory test–retest reliability (GAC ≥ 0.7 and PA ≥ 70% for all). In most known groups, hard-to-observe dimensions were more reliable for proxy-reported Y-5L than Y-3L. Conclusion Both the proxy-reported Y-5L and Y-3L are valid and reliable instruments for assessing the HRQoL of JIS or AIS patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaer Lin & Carlos King Ho Wong & Jason Pui Yin Cheung & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo, 2022. "Psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-Y-5L) in comparison with three-level (EQ-5D-Y-3L) in children and adolescents with scoliosis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1383-1395, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01435-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01435-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01435-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01435-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    2. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    3. Mathieu F. Janssen & Gouke J. Bonsel & Nan Luo, 2018. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 675-697, June.
    4. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    2. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    3. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    4. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999. "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
    6. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    7. Jonathan Darkwah Baffoe & Takeshi Mizunoya & Helmut Yabar, 2021. "Determinants of Rice Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Swampy Wetlands in Ghana’s Northern and Ashanti Regions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    10. Husbands, Samantha & Mitchell, Paul Mark & Kinghorn, Philip & Byford, Sarah & Bailey, Cara & Anand, Paul & Peters, Tim J. & Floredin, Isabella & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "Is well-becoming important for children and young people? Evidence from in-depth interviews with children and young people and their parents," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1995. "Farmer Demand for Safer Pesticides," Staff Paper Series 201201, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    14. Tohmo, Timo, 2004. "Economic value of a local museum: Factors of willingness-to-pay," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 229-240, April.
    15. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    16. A. Asciuto & V. Borsellino & M. D'Acquisto & C.P. Di Franco & M. Di Gesaro & E. Schimmenti, 2015. "Monumental trees and their existence value: the case study of an Italian natural park," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(2), pages 55-61.
    17. Hani Dimassi & Soumana C. Nasser & Aline Issa & Sarine S. Adrian & Bassima Hazimeh, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Health Conditions in Lebanese Community Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    18. John Whitehead & Richard Aiken, 2007. "Temporal reliability of willingness to pay from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 777-786.
    19. Carlos King Ho Wong & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2019. "A head-to-head comparison of five-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and three-level EQ-5D-Y questionnaires in paediatric patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 647-656, July.
    20. Hatch, L. Upton & Hanson, Terrill R., 2001. "Change And Conflict In Land And Water Use: Resource Valuation In Conflict Resolution Among Competing Users," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-10, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Proxy; EQ-5D-Y-3L; EQ-5D-Y-5L; Psychometric performance; Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01435-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.