Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L in South Australia: a multi-method non-preference-based validation study

References

• Erickson P, Patrick D. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams K, Sansoni J, Darcy M, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures. Literature review. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson WM, Caspi A, Poulton R, et al. Personality and oral health. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011;119(5):366–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Basic documents. 48th ed. Genève: World Health Organization; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• WHOQOL Group. The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the world health organization. Soc. Sci. 1995;41:1403–1409.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):593–600.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ, et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 1989;96(3):804–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R, Group E. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Krabbe PF. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(S1):1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, et al. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus . Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):395–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(2):155–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Niakas D, et al. Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ‐5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1162–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang HC, Chuang L, Shun SC, et al. Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(10):1279–1286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowels D, McGloin J, Westfall JM, et al. Validation of the EQ-5D quality of life instrument in patients after myocardial infarction. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):95–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers P. Book review: Measuring disease: a review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. by a bowling. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1147–1148.
   Google Scholar
• Tolley K. What are health utilities. London: Hayward Medical Communications; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JE, Shinall MC, Jr, Leath TC, et al. Worse than death: survey of public perceptions of disability outcomes after hypothetical traumatic brain injury. Ann Surg. 2021;273(3):500–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naning H, Kerr C, Kamarulzaman A, et al. Return on investment and cost-effectiveness of harm reduction program in Malaysia. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Young T, Yang Y, Brazier JE, et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viney R, Norman R, King M, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14(6):928–936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemens S, Begum N, Harper C, et al. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2375–2381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCaffrey N, Kaambwa B, Currow D, et al. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D–5L: South Australian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago PH, Nielsen T, Smithers LG, et al. Measuring stress in Australia: validation of the perceived stress scale (PSS-14) in a national sample. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furr RM, Bacharach VR. Psychometrics: an introduction. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE publications; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen KJ. A new approach to the measurement of cognitive deficits in dementia. Clin Geriatr. 1989;5(3):519–530.
   Google Scholar
• Song YHA, Luzzi L, Chrisopoulos S, et al. Dentist‐patient relationships and oral health impact in australian adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020;48(4):309–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austarlian Bureau of Statics. Use of the Kessler psychological distress scale in ABS health and wellbeing survey, psychological distress in the Western Australian population 1997 and 2001. Canberra; Austarlian Bureau of Statics.
   Google Scholar
• Cislaghi B, Cislaghi C. Self-rated health as a valid indicator for health-equity analyses: evidence from the italian health interview survey. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen B, Szende A. Population norms for the EQ-5D. Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht (NL): Springer; 2014. p. 19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Santos M, Monteiro AL, Santos B. EQ-5D Brazilian population norms. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins DM. The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44(1):1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yarkoni T, Westfall J. Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: lessons from machine learning. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12(6):1100–1122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fokkema M, Greiff S. How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;33(6):399–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlay S. Credit scoring, response modeling, and insurance rating: a practical guide to forecasting consumer behavior. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl F, Grotle A, Benth M, et al. Data splitting as a countermeasure against hypothesis fishing: with a case study of predictors for low back pain. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23(4):237–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen QH, Ly HB, Ho LS, et al. Influence of data splitting on performance of machine learning models in prediction of shear strength of soil. Math. Probl. 2021;2021:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen AP, Golino H, Silvia PJ. A psychometric network perspective on the validity and validation of personality trait questionnaires. Eur J Pers. 2020;34(6):1095–1108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golino HF, Epskamp S. Exploratory graph analysis: a new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0174035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsman M, Borsboom D, Kruis J, et al. An introduction to network psychometrics: relating ising network models to item response theory models multivariate. Multivariate Behav Res. 2018;53(1):15–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech. 2008;2008(10):P10008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen AP, Golino H. Estimating factors with psychometric networks: a Monte Carlo simulation comparing community detection algorithms. Psyarxiv Preprint. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Lauritzen SL. Graphical models. Vol. 17. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Dalalyan AS, Hebiri M, Lederer J. On the prediction performance of the lasso. Bernoulli. 2017;23(1):552–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foygel R, Drton M. Extended Bayesian information criteria for Gaussian graphical models. arXiv Preprint arXiv. 2010;1011.6640.
   Google Scholar
• Liu H, Han F, Yuan M, et al. High-dimensional semiparametric gaussian copula graphical models. Ann. Stat. 2012;40:2293–2326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen AP, Golino H. Estimating the stability of the number of factors via bootstrap exploratory graph analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation and tutorial. Psych. 2021;3(3):479–500.
   Google Scholar
• Fruchterman TM, Reingold EM. Graph drawing by force‐directed placement. Softw: Pract Exper. 1991;21(11):1129–1164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Simple second order chi-square correction. Mplus Technical Appendix. 2010. [1–8 p.]. https://www.statmodel.com/download/WLSMV_new_chi21.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers. Individ. 2007;42(5):893–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zijlmans EA, Tijmstra J, van der Ark LA, et al. Item-score reliability as a selection tool in test construction. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Gonzalez J. Modeling floor effects in standardized vocabulary test scores in a sample of low SES Hispanic preschool children under the multilevel structural equation modeling framework. Front Psychol. 2017;8:2146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim CR, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e007765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(7):1043–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham JW. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:549–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrans CE, Zerwic JJ, Wilbur JE, et al. Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2005;37(4):336–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago PHR, Haag D, Macedo DM, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L for aboriginal Australians: a multi-method study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barendse MT, Oort FJ, Timmerman ME. Using exploratory factor analysis to determine the dimensionality of discrete responses. Struct Equ Model. 2015;22(1):87–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall AG. Dimensionality and instrument validation in factor analysis: effect of the number of response alternatives [doctoral dissertation]. Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–1784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med. Care. 2000;38:115–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43(7):736–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–2363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1707–1716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Samartzis D, et al. Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2016;11(1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras A, Kontodimas S. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2017;309(5):357–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1065–1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin FJ, Pickard AS, Krishnan JA, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):3015–3022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick, G, et al. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3383–3390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agborsangaya C, Lahtinen B, Cooke M, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlińska A, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–1563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang, X, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1767–1774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stöbel-Richter Y, et al. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):443–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, et al. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45(3):259–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):2245–2253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konnopka A, Koenig HH. The “no problems”-problem: an empirical analysis of ceiling effects on the EQ-5D 5L. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2079–2084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Osteoporosis. Cat. no. PHE 233. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat. 2008;61(8):1139–1160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert DM, Harrington TC. Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys. J Bus Logist. 1990;11:5–25.
   Google Scholar
• Song Y, Luzzi L, Chrisopoulos S, et al. Are trust and satisfaction similar in dental care settings? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020;48(6):480–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richiardi L, Pizzi C, Pearce N. Commentary: representativeness is usually not necessary and often should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1018–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman KJ, Gallacher JE, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1012–1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison C, Britt H, Miller G, et al. Prevalence of chronic conditions in Australia. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e67494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar