The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys
- 100 Downloads
To examine the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) by exploring relationships among several well-recognized measures of mental health, the K6 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and the HUI3 in a large, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling subjects. Known-group comparisons were also included in the validation process.
We specified a priori hypotheses about the expected degree of association between the measures. Correlation coefficients of <0.1 were defined as negligible, 0.1 to <0.3 as small, 0.3 to <0.5 as medium, and ≥0.5 as large. Data from the Statistics Canada National Population Health Survey (NPHS) Cycle 2 (1996/97) for respondents 20 years of age or older (n = 66,435) were used to test the a priori hypotheses.
In 58.1% of cases, predictions of association were correct. Predictions were off by one category in 38.9% of cases and a priori predictions were off by two categories in 3.0% of cases.
Our results provide evidence supporting the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 emotion and HUI3 in a nationally representative sample of the community-dwelling population. The results also provide further evidence of the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 in assessing population health.
KeywordsMental health K6 CIDI Health Utilities Index Population health
List of abbreviations
Body mass index
Canadian Community Health Survey
Composite International Diagnostic Interview
EuroQol five-dimension health utility instrument
Health-related quality of life
Health Utilities Index Mark 3
Six-item measure of non-specific psychological distress
Medical Outcomes Study
National Population Health Survey
The research reported in this paper was supported by grants to Mark Kaplan from the National Institute on Aging (“Longitudinal Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life in an Aging Population,” R21 AG027129-01) and the Retirement Research Foundation. The National Institute on Aging and the Retirement Research Foundation have neither reviewed nor approved the manuscript. The authors acknowledge the constructive comments provided by the anonymous referees. The authors thank Rochelle Garner of Statistics Canada for her assistance in accessing the data and Colette Koeune of Statistics Canada for the information on the social support scales used in the NPHS. The authors thank Martha Swain, Leslie Bienen, and Elizabeth Sheeley for their assistance in preparing the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
It should be noted that David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, Ontario, Canada. HUInc. distributes copyrighted Health Utilities Index (HUI) materials and provides methodological advice on the use of the HUI. It should also be noted that HUInc. received no payments for the use of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in the study reported here. None of the other authors declare any conflict of interest.
- 4.Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cairney, J., Veldhuizen, S., Wade, T. J., Kurdyak, P., & Streiner, D. L. (2007). Evaluation of 2 measures of psychological distress as screeners for depression in the general population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(2), 111–120.Google Scholar
- 7.Furukawa, T. A., Kessler, R. C., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (2003). The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine, 33(2), 357–362. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900. doi: 10.1023/A:1008996223999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
- 16.World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 17.American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
- 19.Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 20.Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
- 21.Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- 26.Feeny, D. H., Farris, K., Côté, I., Johnson, J. A., Tsuyuki, R. T., & Eng, K. (2005). A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 138–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Feeny, D. H. (2005). Preference-based measures: Utility and quality-adjusted life years. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 405–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar