Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2245–2253

Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea

  • Tae Hyup Kim
  • Min-Woo Jo
  • Sang-il Lee
  • Seon Ha Kim
  • Son Mi Chung
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The EQ-5D-5L was developed to compensate for a high ceiling effect and lack of descriptive richness of the EQ-5D-3L. We evaluated psychometric properties of EQ-5D-5L in the general population.

Methods

Six hundred of adults were sampled from the general population in South Korea using a multistage stratified quota sampling method. Participants completed the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, and SF-36v2. One hundred participants were resurveyed for reliability evaluation. The ceiling effect, known-groups construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability of EQ-5D-5L were evaluated.

Results

A smaller proportion of participants answered ‘no problem’ to all dimensions of EQ-5D-5L (61.2 %) than EQ-5D-3L (65.7 %, p < 0.01), indicating a reduced ceiling effect. Female, elderly, low-educated, and low-income participants reported health problems more frequently, indicating known-groups construct validity. The mobility dimension of EQ-5D-5L was better correlated with the physical component score (|r| = 0.48) than the mental component score (|r| = 0.25) of the SF-36v2, and the anxiety/depression dimension was better correlated with mental component score (|r| = 0.45) than physical component score (|r| = 0.34), indicating convergent and discriminant validity. The intraclass correlation coefficient of EQ-5D-5L index was 0.75.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L has a smaller ceiling effect than the EQ-5D-3L and is a valid and reliable instrument to measure health-related quality of life in the general population.

Keywords

Helath-related quality of life EQ-5D Psychometrics Validity Reliability SF-36 

Abbreviations

EQ-5D-3L

3-Level version of EQ-5D

EQ-5D-5L

5-Level version of EQ-5D

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

VAS

Visual analogue scale

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

SF-36v2

Version 2.0 of the short-form 36

PF

Physical functioning

RP

Role-physical

BP

Bodily pain

GH

General health

VT

Vitality

SF

Social functioning

RE

Role-emotional

MH

Mental health

PCS

Physical component summary

MCS

Mental component summary

References

  1. 1.
    Savoia, E., Fantini, M. P., Pandolfi, P. P., Dallolio, L., & Collina, N. (2006). Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4, 47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakas, D., Yfantopoulos, J., Dimitrakaki, C., & Tountas, Y. (2008). Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health, 11(7), 1162–1169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 311–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shafie, A. A., Hassali, M. A., & Liau, S. Y. (2011). A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 593–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health, 11(2), 275–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medicinal Care, 38(1), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 309–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstrom, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy, 55(1), 51–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, Y. K., Nam, H. S., Chuang, L. H., Kim, K. Y., Yang, H. K., Kwon, I. S., et al. (2009). South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: Modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health, 12(8), 1187–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lubetkin, E. I., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. R. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myint, P. K., Luben, R. N., Surtees, P. G., Wainwright, N. W., Bingham, S. A., Wareham, N. J., et al. (2009). Effect of age and sex on the relationship between different socioeconomic indices and self-reported functional health in the EPIC-Norfolk population-based study. Annals of Epidemiology, 19(5), 289–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Han, M. A., Ryu, S. Y., Park, J., Kang, M. G., Park, J. K., & Kim, K. S. (2008). Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D in some rural adults. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 41(3), 173–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316(7133), 736–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 119–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sen, A. (2002). Health: Perception versus observation. BMJ, 324(7342), 860–861.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fu, A. Z., & Kattan, M. W. (2006). Racial and ethnic differences in preference-based health status measure. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 22(12), 2439–2448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, H. M., Patrick, D. L., Edwards, T. C., Skalicky, A. M., Zeng, H. Y., & Gu, W. W. (2012). Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 155–160.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tae Hyup Kim
    • 1
  • Min-Woo Jo
    • 2
  • Sang-il Lee
    • 2
  • Seon Ha Kim
    • 2
  • Son Mi Chung
    • 3
  1. 1.Health Screening and Promotion CenterAsan Medical CenterSongpa-Gu, SeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSongpa-Gu, SeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Center for Health PromotionSamsung Medical CenterGangnam-gu, SeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations