Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the construct validity of the CHU9D in an adolescent general population sample. The CHU9D is a new generic preference-based measure of health-related quality of life developed specifically for application in the economic evaluation of health care treatments and interventions for young people.

Methods

A web-based survey was developed including the CHU9D and HUI2 instruments and administered to a community-based sample of consenting adolescents (n = 710) aged 11–17 years. The practicality, face and construct validity of the CHU9D was examined. The relationship between the CHU9D and HUI2 instruments was assessed by a comparison of responses to similar dimensions and the utility scores derived from the two instruments.

Results

The CHU9D demonstrated high completion rates. CHU9D was able to discriminate between respondents according to their self-reported general health (Kruskal–Wallis P value <0.001). The mean CHU9D adolescent population utilities were similar to those generated from the HUI2 [Mean (SD) CHU9D utility 0.844 (0.102) and HUI2 utility 0.872 (0.138)], and the intra-class correlation coefficient indicated good levels of agreement overall (ICC = 0.742).

Conclusion

The findings from this study provide support for the practicality, face and construct validity of the CHU9D for application with adolescents aged 11–17 years.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AQoL:

Assessment of quality of life

CHU9D:

Child health utility 9D

CUA:

Cost utility analysis

EQ-5D:

EuroQol

FAS:

Family affluence scale

HUI2:

Health utilities mark 2

MAUF:

Multi-attribute utility function

QALY:

Quality-adjusted life year

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

References

  1. Williams, P., Holmbeck, G., & Greenley, R. (2002). Adolescent health psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 828–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaw, R. (2001). Treatment adherence in adolescents: Development and psychopathology. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 6, 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. (2009). A healthier future for all Australians—final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Commonwealth of Australia.

  4. Ravens_Sieber, U., Erhart, M., Wille, N., Bullingher, M., & the BELLA study group. (2008). Health related quality of life in children and adolescents in Germany: Results from the BELLA study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(1), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Theunissen, N. C., Vogels, T. G., Koopman, H. M., et al. (1998). The proxy problem: Child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 7, 387–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Josefiak, T., Larsson, B., Wichstrom, L., Mattejat, F., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. R. (2008). Quality of life as reported by school children and their parents: A cross-sectional survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34, 702–722.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McCabe, C., Stevens, K., Roberts, J., Brazier, J. (2005). Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: Results from a UK survey. Health Econ, 14(3), 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 332–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between standard gamble and time trade-off utilities. Health Economics, 11, 447–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J., & Wakker, P. (2001). Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Science, 47, 1498–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1105–1113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Waller, H., Eiser, C., & Knowles, J. (2008). Pilot study of a novel educational programme for 11–16 year olds with type 1 diabetes mellitus: The KICk-OFF course. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 93(11), 927–931.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ratcliffe, J., Couzner, L., Flynn, T., Sawyer, M., Stevens, K., & Brazier, J. (2011). (2010) Assessing the feasibility of applying best worst scaling discrete choice methods to value child health utility 9D health states in a young adolescent sample. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(1), 15–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stevens, K. (2010). Valuation of the child health utility index 9D (CHU9D). Health economics and decision science discussion paper 10/07, ScHARR, University of Sheffield.

  17. Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Sawyer, M. A pilot study to apply best worst scaling discrete choice experiment methods to obtain adolescent specific values for the child health utility 9D. Flinders Centre for Clinical Change working paper 2011/1, Flinders University, South Australia.

  18. Wright, K. Researching internet based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3), article 11.

  19. Gwaltney, C., Sheilds, A., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper and pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lubetkin, E., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions and health related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the US general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grutters, J., Joore, M., Van der Horst, F., et al. (2007). Choosing between measures: Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1439–1449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fleiss, J., Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3, 613–619.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson, A., Krolner, R., Currie, C., et al. (2008). High agreement on family affluence between children and parents’ self reports: International study of 11 year old children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 1092–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Currie, C., Molcho, M., Boyce, W., et al. (2008). Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1429–1436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. SPSS for Windows, Rel. 18.0.1. 2010. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

  26. Norman, R., King, M., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face to face administration of a time trade off task. Quality of Life Research, 19, 499–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchioya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Steve Quinn for his helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. This study was supported by a Flinders University seeding grant.

Conflict of interest

This study has been approved by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, Flinders University, project number: 4701.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders Clinical Effectiveness, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

    Julie Ratcliffe

  2. Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Katherine Stevens & John Brazier

  3. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC), University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Terry Flynn

  4. Discipline of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Michael Sawyer

Authors
  1. Julie Ratcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terry Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Brazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Sawyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Ratcliffe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Flynn, T. et al. An assessment of the construct validity of the CHU9D in the Australian adolescent general population. Qual Life Res 21, 717–725 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9971-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9971-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation