Validity of the Thai EQ-5D in an occupational population in Thailand
- 494 Downloads
To assess the construct validity of the Thai EuroQoL (EQ-5D) among an occupational population in Thailand.
Data were derived from a large cohort study among employees of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. In 2008 and 2009, 4,850 participants completed the Thai EQ-5D and Short-Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2). Thai preferences weights were used to convert EQ-5D health states into EQ-5D index scores. Construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D was examined by specifying and testing hypotheses about the relationships between the EQ-5D, SF-36v2, and participants’ demographic and medical characteristics.
Construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D was supported by expected relationships with SF-36v2 scale and summary scores. For example, SF-36v2 scores on the mental health scale were much lower for participants who reported having problems on the EQ-5D anxiety/depression dimension compared to those reporting no problems (mean norm-based SF-36v2 scores: 52.9 vs. 41.8, p < 0.001). Additionally, reporting a problem in a given EQ-5D dimension was generally associated with lower SF-36v2 summary scores. The EQ-5D index score distinguished between groups of participants in the expected manner, on the basis of sex, age, education and self-reported health, thus providing evidence of known-groups validity.
The study demonstrated good construct validity of the Thai EQ-5D in a large occupational population in Thailand.
KeywordsPsychometrics Thailand Quality of life EuroQoL 5-dimension Short-Form 36
This work is supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi hospital, Mahidol University, the Thailand Research Fund, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and the project for Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Development, Office of the Higher Education Commission. This work is a part of the LIFECARE project which is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer international co.
- 1.The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine 1998, 46(12), 1569–1585.Google Scholar
- 4.Gold, M. R., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., et al. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 5.Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 13.EuroQoL group. www.euroqol.org. Accessed 12 Apr 2012.
- 16.Vathesatogkit, P., Woodward, M., Tanomsup, S. et al. (2012). Cohort Profile: The electricity generating authority of Thailand study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(2), 359–365.Google Scholar
- 18.Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., et al. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
- 21.Laosanguanek, N., Wiroteurairuang, T., Siritho, S., et al. (2011). Reliability of the Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for an evaluation of quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients in multiple sclerosis clinic at Siriraj Hospital. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 94(Suppl 1), S84–S88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Okura, Y., Urban, L. H., Mahoney, D. W., et al. (2004). Agreement between self-report questionnaires and medical record data was substantial for diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke but not for heart failure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(10), 1096–1103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar