Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS)

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study examined the measurement equivalence of the original paper-based vertical format of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS) with a touch-screen computer-based horizontal format.

Methods

A total of 314 subjects were administered two modes of the EQ VAS in a randomized crossover design. One mode was the original paper-based 20 cm vertical EQ VAS; the other mode was touch-screen-based. Measurement equivalence was assessed by testing the 95% confidence interval of the mean differences from an equivalence threshold of −3 to +3 points on the VAS and evaluating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The adjusted mean (SE) EQ VAS score was 80.96 (0.87) on the paper and 79.59 (0.85) on the touch-screen. The mean (CI) difference between scores on the two formats was 1.37 with a confidence interval of 0.175–2.559, wholly contained within the equivalence interval. The ICC was 0.75, indicating acceptable agreement between the two modes. Almost a third (30.1%) of the respondents reported identical scores on both formats.

Conclusion

These results provide evidence for the measurement equivalence of this EQ VAS touch-screen administration mode with the original paper mode.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

EQ VAS:

EQ-5D visual analog scale

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

References

  1. Bloom, D. E. (1998). Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science, 280, 847–848. doi:10.1126/science.280.5365.847.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buxton, J., White, M., & Osoba, D. (1998). Patients’ experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 7(6), 513–519. doi:10.1023/A:1008826408328.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pouwer, F., Snoek, F. J., van der Ploeg, H. M., Heine, R. J., & Brand, A. N. (1998). A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Quality of Life Research, 7, 33–38. doi:10.1023/A:1008832821181.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taenzer, P. A., Speca, M., Atkinson, M. J., Bultz, B. D., Page, S., Harasym, P., et al. (1997). Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Practice, 5, 168–175.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQoL Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343. doi:10.3109/07853890109002087.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ware, J. E., Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important difference in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alderson, C., & Wittenberg, R. (1996, January). Health status of British adult population by the EuroQol instrument and other measures: Omnibus sample survey 1995. Paper presented at the Health Economists’ Study Group Meeting, University of York, England.

  9. Parkin, D., Rice, N., Jacoby, A., & Doughty, J. (2004). Use of a visual analogue scale in a daily patient diary: Modelling cross-sectional time-series data on health-related quality of life. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 351–360. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Macran, S. (2003). Test-retest performance of EQ-5D. In R. Brooks, R. Rabin & F. de Charro (Eds.), The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective (pp. 43–54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hurst, N. P., Kind, P., Ruta, D., Hunter, M., & Stubbings, A. (1997). Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Validity, responsiveness and reliability of Euroqol (EQ-5D). British Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 551–559. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/36.5.551.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bushnell, D. M., Martin, M. L., & Parasuraman, B. (2003). Electronic versus paper questionnaires: A further comparison in persons with asthma. The Journal of Asthma, 40, 1–11. doi:10.1081/JAS-120023501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110, 310–317. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Crawley, J. A., Kleinman, L., & Dominitz, J. (2000). User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal, 34(1), 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by assisTek (formerly Assist Technologies) and the University of Arizona. Prof. Coons’s research and teaching program has received research and unrestricted educational grants from assisTek. At the time this research was conducted, Sulabha Ramachandran was a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Outcomes Research, AstraZeneca LP, PO Box 15437, 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE, 19850, USA

    Sulabha Ramachandran

  2. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    J. Jason Lundy

  3. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Stephen Joel Coons

Authors
  1. Sulabha Ramachandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Jason Lundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Joel Coons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sulabha Ramachandran.

Additional information

Sulabha Ramachandran is an employee of AstraZeneca. However, the views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily state or reflect those of AstraZeneca.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramachandran, S., Lundy, J.J. & Coons, S.J. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Qual Life Res 17, 1117–1120 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9384-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9384-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation