Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 519–526 | Cite as

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

  • David FeenyEmail author
  • Nathalie Huguet
  • Bentson H. McFarland
  • Mark S. Kaplan
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) by exploring relationships among several well-recognized measures of mental health, the K6 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and the HUI3 in a large, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling subjects. Known-group comparisons were also included in the validation process.

Methods

We specified a priori hypotheses about the expected degree of association between the measures. Correlation coefficients of <0.1 were defined as negligible, 0.1 to <0.3 as small, 0.3 to <0.5 as medium, and ≥0.5 as large. Data from the Statistics Canada National Population Health Survey (NPHS) Cycle 2 (1996/97) for respondents 20 years of age or older (n = 66,435) were used to test the a priori hypotheses.

Results

In 58.1% of cases, predictions of association were correct. Predictions were off by one category in 38.9% of cases and a priori predictions were off by two categories in 3.0% of cases.

Conclusions

Our results provide evidence supporting the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 emotion and HUI3 in a nationally representative sample of the community-dwelling population. The results also provide further evidence of the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 in assessing population health.

Keywords

Mental health K6 CIDI Health Utilities Index Population health 

List of abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

CCHS

Canadian Community Health Survey

CIDI

Composite International Diagnostic Interview

EQ-5D

EuroQol five-dimension health utility instrument

HRQL

Health-related quality of life

HUI3

Health Utilities Index Mark 3

K6

Six-item measure of non-specific psychological distress

MOS

Medical Outcomes Study

NPHS

National Population Health Survey

SRH

Self-rated health

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was supported by grants to Mark Kaplan from the National Institute on Aging (“Longitudinal Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life in an Aging Population,” R21 AG027129-01) and the Retirement Research Foundation. The National Institute on Aging and the Retirement Research Foundation have neither reviewed nor approved the manuscript. The authors acknowledge the constructive comments provided by the anonymous referees. The authors thank Rochelle Garner of Statistics Canada for her assistance in accessing the data and Colette Koeune of Statistics Canada for the information on the social support scales used in the NPHS. The authors thank Martha Swain, Leslie Bienen, and Elizabeth Sheeley for their assistance in preparing the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

It should be noted that David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, Ontario, Canada. HUInc. distributes copyrighted Health Utilities Index (HUI) materials and provides methodological advice on the use of the HUI. It should also be noted that HUInc. received no payments for the use of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in the study reported here. None of the other authors declare any conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 375–384. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., et al. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(2), 184–189. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cairney, J., Veldhuizen, S., Wade, T. J., Kurdyak, P., & Streiner, D. L. (2007). Evaluation of 2 measures of psychological distress as screeners for depression in the general population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(2), 111–120.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furukawa, T. A., Kessler, R. C., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (2003). The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine, 33(2), 357–362. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patten, S. B., Brandon-Christie, J., Devji, J., & Sedmak, B. (2000). Performance of the composite international diagnostic interview short form for major depression in a community sample. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 21(2), 68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900. doi: 10.1023/A:1008996223999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 396–408. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tambay, J. L., & Catlin, G. (1995). Sample design of the National Population Health Survey. Health Reports, 7(1), 29–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maddigan, S. L., Feeny, D. H., & Johnson, J. A. (2005). Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1311–1320. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-6640-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kessler, R. C., & Wang, P. S. (2008). The descriptive epidemiology of commonly occurring mental disorders in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 115–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 705–714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blanchard, C., Feeny, D., Mahon, J. L., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Stitt, L., et al. (2004). Is the Health Utilities Index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 339–348. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018479.52075.bf.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., Ferrie, P. J., Griffith, L. E., & Townsend, M. (1996). Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 35–46. doi: 10.1007/BF00435967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., Ferrie, P. J., Griffith, L. E., & Townsend, M. (1996). Measuring quality of life in the parents of children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 27–34. doi: 10.1007/BF00435966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feeny, D. H., Farris, K., Côté, I., Johnson, J. A., Tsuyuki, R. T., & Eng, K. (2005). A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 138–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feeny, D. H. (2005). Preference-based measures: Utility and quality-adjusted life years. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 405–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vasiliadis, H. M., Lesage, A., Adair, C., Wang, P. S., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Do Canada and the United States differ in prevalence of depression and utilization of services? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 58(1), 63–71. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.1.63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Feeny
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Nathalie Huguet
    • 4
  • Bentson H. McFarland
    • 5
  • Mark S. Kaplan
    • 6
  1. 1.The Center for Health ResearchKaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA
  2. 2.University of Alberta and Institute of Health EconomicsEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Health Utilities IncorporatedDundasCanada
  4. 4.Center for Public Health StudiesPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  5. 5.Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  6. 6.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations