Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Test-Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response Version of the EQ-5D in a Sample of Cancer Survivors

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Electronic data capture technologies, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems, are emerging as important alternatives for collecting patient-reported outcome data.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of an IVR version of the EQ-5D.

Methods: Outpatient cancer clinic patients (n= 127) were asked to complete the IVR-based EQ-5D twice, 2 days apart. The analyses tested for mean differences (paired t-test) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) to assess measurement stability over time. Equivalence of the means was established if the 95% confidence interval (CI) was within the minimally important difference (MID) interval; namely −0.035 to 0.035 for the EQ-5D index and −3.0 to 3.0 for the visual analog scale (i.e. EQ VAS). Adequacy of the ICC was established by testing whether it differed from a value of 0.70.

Results: Both administrations were completed per protocol by 114 subjects (EQ-5D index) and 110 subjects (EQ VAS). For the EQ-5D index, the means (SD) of the first and second administrations were 0.871 (0.14) and 0.871 (0.15), respectively. The 95% CI of the mean difference was −0.013, 0.013, within the equivalence interval. The ICC was 0.876 (95% lower bound of 0.826) and was significantly different from 0.70. The EQ VAS means (SD) were 81.3 (17.5) and 80.8 (17.5), respectively. The 95% CI of the mean difference was −0.598, 1.617, within the equivalence interval. The EQ VAS ICC was 0.944 (95% lower bound of 0.919) and was significantly greater than 0.70.

Conclusion: This analysis provides substantial evidence that the scores obtained from the IVR version of the EQ-5D are reliable upon repeated administrations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

References

  1. Konopka A. The power of ePRO. PharmaVOICE 2005 Nov; 40-4

  2. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2009; 12(4): 419–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008; 11: 322–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value Health 2011; 14(6): 867–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 93–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007; 5: 70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  11. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  12. SPSS Inc. SPSS [computer program]. Version 16.0. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc., 2007

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients [published erratum appears in Psychol Methods 1996; 1 (4): 390]. Psychol Methods 1996; 1(1): 1, 30–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999; 38: 807–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, et al. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax 1997; 52: 879–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Macran S. Test-retest performance of EQ-5D. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, editors. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003: 43–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Luo N, Chew L-H, Fong K-Y, et al. Do English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 7 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/7 [Accessed 2010 Sep 13]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gao F, Ng GY, Cheung YB, et al. The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clinical Epidemiol 2009; 62: 206–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The data used for this research were collected as part of a study funded by ClinPhone Plc (now Perceptive Informatics). Additional support was provided by the Arizona Cancer Center Support Grant (grant number CA023074) from the National Cancer Institute. The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff and facility support provided by the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy and the Arizona Cancer Center’s Behavioral Measurements Shared Service.

The authors were employed by the University of Arizona at the time the data for this study were collected. The authors have no financial interest in Perceptive Informatics or ClinPhone Plc. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Perceptive Informatics, the University of Arizona, or Critical Path Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium, Critical Path Institute, 1730 E River Road, Tucson, AZ, 85718-5893, USA

    J. Jason Lundy & Stephen Joel Coons

Authors
  1. J. Jason Lundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Joel Coons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jason Lundy.

Additional information

Key points for decision makers

• Electronic data capture (EDC) technologies are increasingly used to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

• When PRO instruments are migrated to EDC platforms, the reliability of the scores obtained via EDC should be assessed

• The EQ-5D is a widely used preference-based health status measure

• Our results demonstrate the reliability of the interactive voice response version of the EQ-5D upon repeated administration

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lundy, J.J., Coons, S.J. Test-Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response Version of the EQ-5D in a Sample of Cancer Survivors. Patient 5, 21–26 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11595840-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11595840-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation