Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 717–725 | Cite as

An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population

  • Julie RatcliffeEmail author
  • Katherine Stevens
  • Terry Flynn
  • John Brazier
  • Michael Sawyer



To assess the construct validity of the CHU9D in an adolescent general population sample. The CHU9D is a new generic preference-based measure of health-related quality of life developed specifically for application in the economic evaluation of health care treatments and interventions for young people.


A web-based survey was developed including the CHU9D and HUI2 instruments and administered to a community-based sample of consenting adolescents (n = 710) aged 11–17 years. The practicality, face and construct validity of the CHU9D was examined. The relationship between the CHU9D and HUI2 instruments was assessed by a comparison of responses to similar dimensions and the utility scores derived from the two instruments.


The CHU9D demonstrated high completion rates. CHU9D was able to discriminate between respondents according to their self-reported general health (Kruskal–Wallis P value <0.001). The mean CHU9D adolescent population utilities were similar to those generated from the HUI2 [Mean (SD) CHU9D utility 0.844 (0.102) and HUI2 utility 0.872 (0.138)], and the intra-class correlation coefficient indicated good levels of agreement overall (ICC = 0.742).


The findings from this study provide support for the practicality, face and construct validity of the CHU9D for application with adolescents aged 11–17 years.


Adolescents Quality-adjusted life years Questionnaires Outcome assessment (health care) Community 



Assessment of quality of life


Child health utility 9D


Cost utility analysis




Family affluence scale


Health utilities mark 2


Multi-attribute utility function


Quality-adjusted life year


Visual analogue scale



The authors would like to thank Dr Steve Quinn for his helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. This study was supported by a Flinders University seeding grant.

Conflict of interest

This study has been approved by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, Flinders University, project number: 4701.


  1. 1.
    Williams, P., Holmbeck, G., & Greenley, R. (2002). Adolescent health psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 828–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaw, R. (2001). Treatment adherence in adolescents: Development and psychopathology. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 6, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. (2009). A healthier future for all Australians—final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ravens_Sieber, U., Erhart, M., Wille, N., Bullingher, M., & the BELLA study group. (2008). Health related quality of life in children and adolescents in Germany: Results from the BELLA study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(1), 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Theunissen, N. C., Vogels, T. G., Koopman, H. M., et al. (1998). The proxy problem: Child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 7, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Josefiak, T., Larsson, B., Wichstrom, L., Mattejat, F., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. R. (2008). Quality of life as reported by school children and their parents: A cross-sectional survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34, 702–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCabe, C., Stevens, K., Roberts, J., Brazier, J. (2005). Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: Results from a UK survey. Health Econ, 14(3), 231–244.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between standard gamble and time trade-off utilities. Health Economics, 11, 447–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J., & Wakker, P. (2001). Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Science, 47, 1498–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1105–1113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waller, H., Eiser, C., & Knowles, J. (2008). Pilot study of a novel educational programme for 11–16 year olds with type 1 diabetes mellitus: The KICk-OFF course. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 93(11), 927–931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ratcliffe, J., Couzner, L., Flynn, T., Sawyer, M., Stevens, K., & Brazier, J. (2011). (2010) Assessing the feasibility of applying best worst scaling discrete choice methods to value child health utility 9D health states in a young adolescent sample. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(1), 15–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stevens, K. (2010). Valuation of the child health utility index 9D (CHU9D). Health economics and decision science discussion paper 10/07, ScHARR, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Sawyer, M. A pilot study to apply best worst scaling discrete choice experiment methods to obtain adolescent specific values for the child health utility 9D. Flinders Centre for Clinical Change working paper 2011/1, Flinders University, South Australia.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright, K. Researching internet based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3), article 11.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gwaltney, C., Sheilds, A., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper and pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lubetkin, E., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions and health related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the US general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grutters, J., Joore, M., Van der Horst, F., et al. (2007). Choosing between measures: Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1439–1449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fleiss, J., Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3, 613–619.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson, A., Krolner, R., Currie, C., et al. (2008). High agreement on family affluence between children and parents’ self reports: International study of 11 year old children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 1092–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Currie, C., Molcho, M., Boyce, W., et al. (2008). Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1429–1436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    SPSS for Windows, Rel. 18.0.1. 2010. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norman, R., King, M., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face to face administration of a time trade off task. Quality of Life Research, 19, 499–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchioya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Ratcliffe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katherine Stevens
    • 2
  • Terry Flynn
    • 3
  • John Brazier
    • 2
  • Michael Sawyer
    • 4
  1. 1.Flinders Clinical EffectivenessFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  2. 2.Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARRUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC)University of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Discipline of PaediatricsUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations