PURPOSE:The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the 5-level classification system of the EQ-5D (5L), in comparison with the 3-level EQ-5D (3L).
METHODS:Participants (n = 3,919) from six countries, including eight patient groups with chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, depression, diabetes, liver disease, personality disorders, arthritis, and stroke) and a student cohort, completed the 3L and 5L and, for most participants, also dimension-specific rating scales. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of feasibility (missing values), redistribution properties, ceiling, discriminatory power, convergent validity, and known-groups validity.
RESULTS:Missing values were on average 0.8% for 5L and 1.3% for 3L. In total, 2.9% of responses were inconsistent between 5L and 3L. Redistribution from 3L to 5L using EQ dimension-specific rating scales as reference was validated for all 35 3L-5L-level combinations. For 5L, 683 unique health states were observed versus 124 for 3L. The ceiling was reduced from 20.2% (3L) to 16.0% (5L). Absolute discriminatory power (Shannon index) improved considerably with 5L (mean 1.87 for 5L versus 1.24 for 3L), and relative discriminatory power (Shannon Evenness index) improved slightly (mean 0.81 for 5L versus 0.78 for 3L). Convergent validity with WHO-5 was demonstrated and improved slightly with 5L. Known-groups validity was confirmed for both 5L and 3L.
CONCLUSIONS:The EQ-5D-5L appears to be a valid extension of the 3-level system which improves upon the measurement properties, reducing the ceiling while improving discriminatory power and establishing convergent and known-groups validity.
-
【Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study.].
【EQ-5D-5L与EQ-5D-3L在八个患者组中的测量特性：一项多国研究。】
复制标题
收藏
DOI：10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4文章类型：杂志文章
复制DOI
译文
目的：本研究的目的是评估EQ-5D（5L）的5级分类系统与3级EQ-5D（3L）的测量性能。
方法：来自六个国家的参与者（n = 3,919），包括八个患有慢性病（心血管疾病，呼吸系统疾病，抑郁症，糖尿病，肝病，人格障碍，关节炎和中风）的患者组和一个学生队列，完成了3L和5L，对于大多数参与者，还包括特定于维度的等级量表。比较了3L和5L的可行性（缺失值），重新分配属性，上限，区分能力，收敛效度和已知群体效度。
结果：5升漏失平均值平均为3升，漏失值为1.3％。总计2.9％的响应在5L和3L之间不一致。对于所有35种3L-5L级组合，均使用EQ尺寸特定等级量表作为参考，从3L重新分配到5L。对于5升，观察到683个独特的健康状态，而对于3升则观察到124个。上限从20.2％（3L）降低到16.0％（5L）。绝对判别力（Shannon指数）在5L时有显着提高（5L平均值为1.87，3L为1.24），相对判别力（Shannon均匀度指数）略有提高（5L分别为0.81和3L分别为0.78）。证实了与WHO-5的收敛效度，并与5L相比略有改善。 5L和3L均确认了已知组的有效性。
结论：EQ-5D-5L似乎是三级系统的有效扩展，它改善了测量性能，降低了上限，同时提高了鉴别能力，并建立了收敛性和已知群体的有效性。
方法：来自六个国家的参与者（n = 3,919），包括八个患有慢性病（心血管疾病，呼吸系统疾病，抑郁症，糖尿病，肝病，人格障碍，关节炎和中风）的患者组和一个学生队列，完成了3L和5L，对于大多数参与者，还包括特定于维度的等级量表。比较了3L和5L的可行性（缺失值），重新分配属性，上限，区分能力，收敛效度和已知群体效度。
结果：5升漏失平均值平均为3升，漏失值为1.3％。总计2.9％的响应在5L和3L之间不一致。对于所有35种3L-5L级组合，均使用EQ尺寸特定等级量表作为参考，从3L重新分配到5L。对于5升，观察到683个独特的健康状态，而对于3升则观察到124个。上限从20.2％（3L）降低到16.0％（5L）。绝对判别力（Shannon指数）在5L时有显着提高（5L平均值为1.87，3L为1.24），相对判别力（Shannon均匀度指数）略有提高（5L分别为0.81和3L分别为0.78）。证实了与WHO-5的收敛效度，并与5L相比略有改善。 5L和3L均确认了已知组的有效性。
结论：EQ-5D-5L似乎是三级系统的有效扩展，它改善了测量性能，降低了上限，同时提高了鉴别能力，并建立了收敛性和已知群体的有效性。
