Quality of Life Research

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 609–619 | Cite as

Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability

  • Elena M. AndresenEmail author
  • Victoria J. Vahle
  • Donald Lollar


Objectives: Research and surveillance activities sometimes require that proxy respondents provide key exposure or outcome information, especially for studies of people with disability (PWD). In this study, we compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) responses of index PWD to proxies. Methods: Subjects were selected from nursing home, other assisted living residences, and from several clinic samples of PWD. Each index identified one or more proxy respondents. Computer-assisted interviews used a random order of measures. Proxy reliability was measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) and κ statistics. HRQoL measures tested included the surveillance questions of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs), medical outcomes study short-form 36 and 12 (SF-36 and SF-12). Results: A total of 131 index-proxy sets were completed. In general, agreement and reliability of proxy responses to the PWD tended to be best for relatives, with friends lower, and health care proxies lowest. For example, the ICC for the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 was 0.68 for relatives, 0.51 for friends, and 0.40 for healthcare proxies. There was a tendency for proxies to overestimate impairment and underestimate HRQoL. This pattern was reversed for measures of pain, which proxies consistently underestimated. The pattern among instruments, proxy types, and HRQoL domains was complex, and individual measures vary from these general results. Conclusions: We suggest caution when using proxy respondents for HRQoL, especially those measuring more subjective domains.

Disabled persons Health status indicators Proxy Quality of life Questionnaires Reproducibility of results 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nelson LM, Longstreth WTJ, Koepsell TD, et al. Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev 1990; 12: 71–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, et al. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 1991; 29(2): 115–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, et al. Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41(11): 1065–1074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, et al. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients' health status and satisfaction with medical care? Med Care 1989; 27(Suppl 3): S91–S98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, et al. Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(7): 617–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, et al. Value of caregiver ratings in evaluating the quality of life of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(3): 1206–1217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Osoba D, et al. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 1997; 35(5): 490–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(7): 743–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andresen E. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(Suppl 8): S15–S20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andresen E, Meyers A. Health-related quality of life as a disability outcomes measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(Suppl 12): S30–S45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. 1994 National Health Interview Survey on Disability, Phase 1 — CD-ROM series 10, no. 8. Issued July 1996 — SETS Version 1.22a (database). Available: Scholar
  12. 12.
    Todorov A, Kirchner C. Bias in proxies' reports of disability: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Disability. Am J Public Health 2000; 90(8): 1248–1253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andresen EM, Fitch CA, McLendon PM, et al. Reliability and validity of disability questions for the US census 2000. Am J Public Health 2000; 90(8): 1297–1299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Workshop on Quality of Life/Health Status Surveillance for States and Communities. Report of a meeting held on December 2–4, 1991. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stone Mountain, GA, 1993; pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Consultation on Functional Status Surveillance for States and Communities. Report of a meeting held on June 4–5, 1992. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Decatur, GA, 1993; pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anonymous. Health-related quality-of-life measures — United States, 1993. MMWR 1995; 44(11): 195–200.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Accessed 6 September 2000). State disability and program grants (microcomputer). Available: Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anonymous. Health-related quality of life and activity limitation — eight states, 1995. MMWR 1998; 47(7): 134–140.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anonymous. State differences in reported healthy days among older adults — United States. MMWR 1998; 47: 239–244.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gentry EM, Kalsbeek WD, Hogelin GC, et al. The behavioral risk factor surveys II. Design, methods, and estimates from combined state data. Am J Prev Med 1985; 1(6): 9–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hennessy CH, Moriarty DG, Zack MM, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life for public health surveillance. Public Health Rep 1994; 109(5): 665–672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Measuring Healthy Days: Population Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2000). Health-Related Quality of Life (website) [on-line]. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved April 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36–item short-form health survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide, Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. 2nd edn., Boston: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12–Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34(3): 220–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katz S. Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc 1983; 31(12): 721–727.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawton MP. Scales to measure competence in everyday activities. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24(4): 609–614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9(3): 179–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, et al. Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80 (May 1999): 877–884.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prysak GM, Andresen EM, Meyers AR. Prevalence of secondary conditions in veterans with spinal cord injury and their interference with life activities. Top Spinal Cord Injury Rehabili 2000; 6(1): 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meyers AR, Glover M, Master RJ. Primary care for persons with disabilities. The Boston, Massachusetts model program. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 76(Suppl 3): May–June.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meyers AR, Bisbee A, Winter M. The ‘Boston model’ of managed care and spinal cord injury: A cross-sectional study of the outcomes of risk-based, prepaid, managed care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80(11): 1450–1456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sawtooth Software Inc., Ci3 2.0.12c, Version 2.0.12c. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Inc., 1985–1996.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Remington PL, Smith MY, Williamson DF, et al. Design, characteristics, and usefulness of state-based behavioral risk factor surveillance: 1981–87. Public Health Rep 1988; 103(4): 366–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Newschaffer CJ. Validation of the BRFSS HRQoL measures in a statewide sample. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lawton MP, Moss M, Fulcomer M, et al. A research and service oriented multilevel assessment instrument. J Gerontol 1982; 37(1): 91–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    SPSS Inc. SPSS Base 9.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc., 1999.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd edn., New York: Wiley, 1981: pp. 4–17, 217–232.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Agresti A, Ghosh A, Bini M. Ranking Kappa: Describing potential impact of marginal distributions on measures of agreement. Biomed J 1995; 37(7): 811–820.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E. Behavior and interpretation of the κ Statistic: Resolution of the Two Paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(4): 431–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley, 1986, pp. 12–28.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rozenbilds U, Goldney RD, Gilchrist PN, et al. Assessment by relatives of elderly patients with psychiatric illness. Psychol Rep 1986; 58(3): 795–801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Magaziner J, Bassett SS, Hebel JR, et al. Use of proxies to measure health and functional status in epidemiologic studies of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143(3): 283–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, et al. Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 146(5): 418–428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kiyak HA, Teri L, Borson S. Physical and functional health assessment in normal aging and in Alzheimer's disease: Self-reports vs. family reports (see comments). Gerontologist 1994; 34: 324–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bassett SS, Magaziner J, Hebel JR. Reliability of proxy response on mental health indices for aged, community-dwelling women. Psychol Aging 1990; 5(1): 127–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Farrow DC, Samet JM. Comparability of information provided by elderly cancer patients and surrogates regarding health and functional status, social network, and life events. Epidemiology 1990; 1(5): 370–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader K, et al. Comparing proxy and patients' perceptions of patients' functional status: Results from an outpatient geriatric clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40(6): 585–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena M. Andresen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victoria J. Vahle
    • 1
  • Donald Lollar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Community Health, School of Public HealthSaint Louis UniversitySaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Disability and Health BranchCenter on Child Development and Developmental Disability, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations