Advertisement

Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population

  • Asrul Akmal Shafie
  • Annushiah Vasan Thakumar
  • Ching Jou Lim
  • Nan Luo
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the psychometric properties and performance of Malay and English versions of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive instrument in the general Malaysian population.

Methods

1137 members of the Malaysian general public were sampled in this national study. Respondents were recruited by quota sampling of urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity. In face-to-face interviews, respondents first answered the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered using the EQ-Valuation Technology software, and then completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire on paper. A subgroup of the respondents were given paper form of EQ-5D-5L for completion within 2 weeks for test–retest reliability. Ceiling effects, response redistribution, informativity, and convergent validity were compared between EQ-5D-5L and ED-5D-3L separately by Malay and English language versions.

Results

The proportion of ‘full health’ responses (11111) drastically decreased by 25.55% and 15.74% in the Malay and English language versions indicating lower ceiling effects in EQ-5D-5L. Inconsistencies from response redistribution was below 6% for all dimensions across languages. The measure of relative informativity was comparatively higher in EQ-5D-5L than in EQ-5D-3L in both language versions, with the exception of dimensions mobility and pain/discomfort in the English version. Convergent validity in terms of correlation with EQ-VAS was relatively better for EQ-5D-5L dimensions, with pain/discomfort of the Malay version having the strongest correlation (|r| = 0.37). Also, reliability testing revealed moderate to poor agreements on all 5L dimensions.

Conclusions

EQ-5D-5L fared better in terms of psychometric performance compared to EQ-5D-3L for both language versions. This encourages the application of the EQ-5D-5L in health-related research in Malaysia.

Keywords

EQ-5D-5L EQ-5D-3L Psychometric properties Validity Reliability 

Notes

Funding

This study was co-funded by EuroQol Research Foundation and Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Research University Grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Nan Luo is a member of EuroQol Research Foundation. There is no other conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The study received ethical approval from the Malaysia Medical Research & Ethics Committee (ID NMRR-13-1377-18574) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gudex, C. (2006). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 19–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 in Health, 11(2), 275–284.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. The European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y.-S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shafie, A. A. (2014). EuroQol 5-Dimension measures in Malaysia. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2041–2044). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shafie, A., Hassali, M., & Liau, S. (2011). A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 593–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9774-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varatharajan, S., & Chen, W.-S. (2011). Reliability and validity of EQ-5D in Malaysian population. Applied Research in Quality of Life.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-011-9156-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oppe, M., & Van Hout, B. (2017). The ‘‘power’’ of eliciting EQ-5D-5L values: the experimental design of the EQ-VT. EuroQol Working Paper Series, 17003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Statistics Malaysia Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010. https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09.
  12. 12.
    Shannon, C. E. (1949). Communication theory of secrecy systems. Bell System Technical Journal, 28(4), 656–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faridah, A., Jamaiyah, H., Goh, A., & Soraya, A. (2010). The validation of the EQ-5D in Malaysian dialysis patients. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 65(Suppl A), 114–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, T. H., Jo, M.-W., Lee, S., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 2245–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janssen, M., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y.-S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greene, M. E., Rader, K. A., Garellick, G., Malchau, H., Freiberg, A. A., & Rolfson, O. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 473(11), 3383–3390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4091-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1707–1716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramachandran, S., Lundy, J. J., & Coons, S. J. (2008). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). [Article]. Quality of Life Research, 17(8), 1117–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9384-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bagattini, ÂM., Camey, S. A., Miguel, S. R., Andrade, M. V., de Souza Noronha, K. V. M., de M. A. D. C. Teixeira, et al (2018). Electronic version of the EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire: Adaptation to a Brazilian population sample. Value in Health Regional Issues, 17, 88–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2017.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x. doi.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality Of Life Research: An International Journal Of Quality Of Life Aspects Of Treatment, Care And Rehabilitation, 25(3), 559–574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campbell, N., Ali, F., Finlay, A., & Salek, S. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 1949–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0937-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luo, N., Wang, Y., How, C. H., Wong, K. Y., Shen, L., Tay, E. G., et al. (2015). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the EQ-5D-5L items for English-speaking Asians in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1565–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0864-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Discipline of Social & Administrative PharmacyUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Saw Swee Hock School of Public HealthNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations