Applied Research in Quality of Life

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 209–221 | Cite as

Reliability and Validity of EQ-5D in Malaysian Population

Article

Abstract

This cross-sectional study, involving conveniently chosen respondents in the Klang Valley area, was designed to answer the question “Can EQ-5D be used as a QOL instrument in the National Health Morbidity Survey in Malaysia?”. The chosen versions (Malay, Tamil, and Mandarin) of the translated EQ-5D were tested for their reliability and validity. After a written consent was obtained from each respondent, a standardized questionnaire for self-completion was given. It took an average of 10–15 min to complete the questionnaire. Each respondent who returned the completed questionnaire was approached again with an identical copy of the questionnaire to assess the test-retest reliability after a 2-week interval. Reliability was assessed by analyzing the study instrument’s test-retest reliability, while a predictive validity was used to investigate the predictive strength of a composite index of the five factors of EQ-5D (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) on the overall perceived health (EQ VAS). An intraclass correlation (ICC), generated based on a single rate using the one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, was used to evaluate the test-retest reliability (Streiner and Norman 1995), while spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to quantify the predictive strength of a composite index of the five factors of EQ-5D on the overall perceived health (EQ VAS) (Elmes et al. 2006). It was surprising to note 1–2 folds increase in the reported cases for pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, the same trend was observed across different versions of EQ-5D. The ICC values were found to be in the range of <0.01 to 0.92, while 0.61–0.86 were the range for the spearman rank correlation coefficient value. The findings in this study demonstrated the EQ-5D questionnaires translated by the EuroQOL Group had reasonable test-retest reliability and predictive validity results. With these results, it is hoped that these instruments will be incorporated into future National Health Morbidity Survey in Malaysia.

Keywords

EQ-5D Malaysia Reliability Quality of life 

References

  1. Brooks, R., & EuroQol Group. (1996). EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, W. S. (2009). Questionnaire translation and psychometric properties evaluation. SEGi Review, 2(2), 62–71.Google Scholar
  3. Cross-National Collaborative Group. (1992). The changing rate of major depression: cross-national comparisons. JAMA, 268(21), 3098–3105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2002). Demographic trends in Malaysia with Special focus on women. In Department of Statistics Malaysia website. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.my.
  5. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2009). Statistics Handbook Malaysia 2009. In Department of Statistics Malaysia website. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.my.
  6. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2010). Population and housing census of Malaysia 2010 – preliminary count report. In Department of Statistics Malaysia website. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/BPD/Laporan_Kiraan_Permulaan2010.pdf.
  7. Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Research methods in psychology. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education.Google Scholar
  8. Foy, P. (2001). P25: Intraclass correlation and variance components as population attributes and measures of sampling efficiency in PIRLS. In International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) website. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC2004/Foy.pdf.
  9. Gill, T. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). Critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA, 272, 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guyatt, G. H., Van Zanten, S. J. O. V., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. CMAJ, 140, 1441–1448.Google Scholar
  11. Hamming, J. F., & De Vries, J. (2007). Measuring quality of life. British Journal of Surgery, 94, 923–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Institute for Public Health (IPH). (2008). The Third National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS III) 2006. Malaysia: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  13. Jenney, M. E. M., & Campbell, S. (1997). Measuring quality of life. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 77, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 1401–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316, 736–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maurice, J., Staquet, R. H. D., & Peter, M. F. (1998). Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methods and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstien, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory.3. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Oppe, M., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2007). EQ-5D user guide (version 1.0). In EuroQOL website. Retrieved from http://www.euroqol.org.
  19. Petroua, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: a measure of health status from EuroQOL Group. The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.Google Scholar
  21. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Economics, 11, 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uncommon Knowledge LLP. (2001–2010). Depression: understand it, treat it, beat it. In Uncommon Knowledge LLP website. Retrieved from http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/dlp/depression-information/major-depression-facts.
  24. Varatharajan, S., Chen, W. S., Appannah, G., & Selvaraj, G. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Malay version of the EQ-5D in Malaysia. SEGi Review, 3(2), 46–52.Google Scholar
  25. Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wee, H. L., Loke, W. C., Li, S. C., Fong, K. Y., Cheung, Y. B., Machin, D., et al. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of singapore malay and tamil versions of the EQ-5D. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 36, 403–408.Google Scholar
  27. Weissman, M. M., & Klerman, G. L. (1978). Epidemiology of mental disorders. Emerging trends in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatrry, 35, 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whynes, D. K. (2008). Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V./The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Research CentreHospital Kuala LumpurKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Research and Innovation Management CentreSEGi University CollegePetaling JayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations