Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2237–2243 | Cite as

A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems

  • Nan LuoEmail author
  • Minghui Li
  • Julie Chevalier
  • Andrew Lloyd
  • Michael Herdman
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

EQ-5D Cross-cultural equivalence Ordinality Likert scale 

References

  1. 1.
    Davey, H. M., Barratt, A. L., Butow, P. N., & Deeks, J. J. (2007). A one-item question with a Likert or visual analog scale adequately measured current anxiety. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Laerhoven, H., van der Zaag-Loonen, H. J., & Derkx, B. H. (2004). A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatrica, 93(6), 830–835.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (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. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2012). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0200-0.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 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
  10. 10.
    Pope, J. E., Khanna, D., Norrie, D., & Ouimet, J. M. (2009). The minimally important difference for the health assessment questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis clinical practice is smaller than in randomized controlled trials. The Journal of Rheumatology, 36(2), 254–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwok, T., & Pope, J. E. (2010). Minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: Health assessment questionnaire and pain, fatigue, and global visual analog scales. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(5), 1024–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Ries, A. L. (2005). Minimally clinically important difference for the UCSD shortness of breath questionnaire, Borg scale, and visual analog scale. Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2(1), 105–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996). The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3(2), 142–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 463–473. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    WHOQOL. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knutsson, I., Rydstrom, H., Reimer, J., Nyberg, P., & Hagell, P. (2010). Interpretation of response categories in patient-reported rating scales: A controlled study among people with Parkinson’s disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hofmans, J., & Theuns, P. (2008). On the linearity of predefined and self-anchoring visual analogue scales. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(Pt 2), 401–413. doi: 10.1348/000711007X206817.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Myles, P. S., Troedel, S., Boquest, M., & Reeves, M. (1999). The pain visual analog scale: Is it linear or nonlinear? Anesthesia and Analgesia, 89(6), 1517–1520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nan Luo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Minghui Li
    • 2
  • Julie Chevalier
    • 3
  • Andrew Lloyd
    • 4
  • Michael Herdman
    • 5
  1. 1.Saw Swee Hock School of Public HealthNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services ResearchUniversity of Maryland School of PharmacyBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.ESSEC Business SchoolParisFrance
  4. 4.Oxford Outcomes LtdOxfordUK
  5. 5.Insight Consulting & ResearchMataróSpain

Personalised recommendations