A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems
- 569 Downloads
To compare the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems.
Members of the general populations in the UK, Spain, France, and China were interviewed to measure the severity of health problems represented by the response labels used in the EQ-5D descriptive systems using a visual analog scale. Multiple linear regression models were used to compare the perceived label severity across the four language groups. Severity scores for labels from each EQ-5D-5L dimension scale were compared with each other to assess ordinality.
EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L labels used for describing different levels of health problems were rated differently, while those describing the same level of health problems were rated similarly. For example, the deviation of any group mean from the grand severity mean score for the label ‘slight(ly)’ was no larger than 5 points on a 0–100 scale for all five EQ-5D dimensions (p > 0.05 for all, t tests). Label ratings violating hypothesized ordinality of the EQ-5D-5L scales were observed in only a small proportion of respondents.
Our study provided some preliminary evidence supporting the ordinality and equivalence of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L descriptive systems across four major languages.
KeywordsEQ-5D Cross-cultural equivalence Ordinality Likert scale
- 3.Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr, Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project International Quality of Life Assessment. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 933–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Chevalier, J., & de Pouvourville, G. (2008 September 11–12). Testing of a new 5 level version of the EQ-5D in France. Paper presented at the 25th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group, Baveno.Google Scholar
- 8.Herdman, M., Kind, P., Chevalier, J., Gudex, C., & de Pouvourville, G. (2007 September 13–15). Investigation of labels for additional EQ-5D levels: results of main study +1. Paper presented at the 24th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group, The Hague.Google Scholar
- 9.Khanna, D., Pope, J. E., Khanna, P. P., Maloney, M., Samedi, N., Norrie, D., et al. (2008). The minimally important difference for the fatigue visual analog scale in patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed in an academic clinical practice. The Journal of Rheumatology, 35(12), 2339–2343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Khanna, P. P., Maranian, P., Gregory, J., & Khanna, D. (2010). The minimally important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the Raynaud’s condition score in patients with Raynaud’s phenomenon in a large randomised controlled clinical trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 69(3), 588–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mulhern, M., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Rowen, D. (2012 September 13–15). How do respondents perceive health state valuation exercises? A ‘think aloud’ study investigating time trade off and discrete choice experiments. Paper presented at the 29th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- 21.Svensson, E. (2000). Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal, 42(4), 417–434. doi: 10.1002/1521-4036(200008)42:4<417:aid-bimj417>3.0.co;2-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar