Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1065–1073 | Cite as

Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea

  • Seon Ha Kim
  • Hwa Jung Kim
  • Sang-il Lee
  • Min-Woo Jo



This study was conducted to assess the redistribution properties of the EQ-5D-3L when using the EQ-5D-5L and to compare the validity, informativity, and reliability of both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Korean cancer patients.


Patients visiting one ambulatory cancer center self-administered the two versions of the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Redistribution properties in each dimension of EQ-5D were analyzed between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Informativity was evaluated using the Shannon entropy and ceiling effect. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales. Reliability was also evaluated in terms of test–retest reliability.


All levels of the EQ-5D-3L substantially partitioned into associated levels of the EQ-5D-5L. The average inconsistency rate of the two versions was 3.5%. Absolute informativity was higher for the EQ-5D-5L than for the EQ-5D-3L, but their informative efficiency tended to be similar. The proportion of ‘perfect health’ (11111) decreased from 16.8% in the EQ-5D-3L to 9.7% in the EQ-5D-5L. EQ-5D-5L demonstrated similar or higher correlations with the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30, than the EQ-5D-3L. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the EQ-5D-5L index was 0.77.


The EQ-5D-5L had greater informativity and lower rate in the ceiling effect than those values of the EQ-5D-3L. The EQ-5D-5L showed good construct validity and reasonable reliability. Therefore, considering these findings, the EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to the EQ-5D-3L.


EQ-5D Health-related quality of life Cancer Psychometrics 



Eastern Cancer Oncology Group


3-level version of EQ-5D


5-level version of EQ-5D


European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30


European Union International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research


Health-related quality of life


Health utility index mark 2


Health utility index mark 3


Intraclass correlation coefficient


Short form 6 dimension


Visual analogue scale


  1. 1.
    Park, S. S., Yoon, Y. S., & Oh, S. W. (2011). Health-related quality of life in metabolic syndrome: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 91(3), 381–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lang, H. C., Chuang, L., Shun, S. C., Hsieh, C. L., & Lan, C. F. (2010). Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18(10), 1279–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoi le, V., Chuc, N. T., & Lindholm, L. (2010). Health-related quality of life, and its determinants, among older people in rural Vietnam. BMC Public Health, 10, 549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang, E. J., & Ko, S. K. (2009). A catalogue of EQ-5D utility weights for chronic diseases among noninstitutionalized community residents in Korea. Value Health, 12(Suppl 3), S114–S117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, R., Rabin, R. E., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., & Frost, H. (2006). Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 31(7), 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gusi, N., Tomas-Carus, P., Hakkinen, A., Hakkinen, K., & Ortega-Alonso, A. (2006). Exercise in waist-high warm water decreases pain and improves health-related quality of life and strength in the lower extremities in women with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(1), 66–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14, 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrou, S., Morrell, J., & Spiby, H. (2009). Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., et al. (2010). Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 853–864.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J., I. I. I. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health, 9, 262–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, M. H., Cho, Y. S., Uhm, W. S., Kim, S., & Bae, S. C. (2005). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1401–1406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, Y. K., Nam, H. S., Chuang, L. H., et al. (2009). South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: Modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value in Health, 12(8), 1187–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aaronson, N. K., Cull, A. M., Kaasa, S., & Sprangers, M. A. (1996). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: An update. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 179–189). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dahl, F. A., & Østerås, N. (2010). Quantifying information content in survey data by entropy. Entropy, 12, 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Nizam, A., & Muller, K. E. (2008). Testing for the equality of two correlations. In C. Crockett (Ed.), Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods (4th ed., pp. 103–104). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley, John and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 169–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gao, F., Ng, G. Y., Cheung, Y. B., et al. (2009). The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(2), 206–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hughes, D. A. (2007). Feasibility, validity and reliability of the Welsh version of the EQ-5D health status questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1419–1423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seon Ha Kim
    • 1
  • Hwa Jung Kim
    • 2
  • Sang-il Lee
    • 1
  • Min-Woo Jo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsAsan Medical CenterSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations