Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2021 | Central Nervous System Trauma

Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded QOLIBRI-OS in the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

Authors: Di Long, Suzanne Polinder, Gouke J. Bonsel, Juanita A. Haagsma

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 10/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded Quality of Life After Traumatic Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS) for the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

The sample contains 1864 members of the general population (aged 18–75 years) of Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK who completed a web-based questionnaire at two consecutive time points. The survey included items on gender, age, level of education, occupational status, household annual income, chronic health status, and the EQ-5D-5L and reworded QOLIBRI-OS instrument. Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L summary index, EQ VAS, reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions and reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score was examined by Gwet’s Agreement Coefficient (Gwet’s AC) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).

Results

Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.64 to 0.97 for EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The ICC ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 for the EQ-5D-5L summary index and 0.61 to 0.68 for EQ VAS in the three countries. Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.35 to 0.55 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions in the three countries. The ICC ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score.

Conclusion

Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L administered via a web-based questionnaire was substantial to almost perfect for the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, good for EQ-5D-5L summary index, and moderate for the EQ VAS. However, test–retest reliability was less satisfactory for the reworded QOLIBRI-OS. This indicates that the web-based EQ-5D-5L is a reliable instrument for the general population, but further research of the reworded QOLIBRI-OS is required.

Available only for authorised users

Yin, S., Njai, R., Barker, L., Siegel, P. Z., & Liao, Y. (2016). Summarizing health-related quality of life (HRQOL): development and testing of a one-factor model. Population Health Metrics, 14, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-016-0091-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009CrossRefPubMed

Romero, M., Vivas-Consuelo, D., & Alvis-Guzman, N. (2013). Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation? Springerplus, 2, 664. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Devlin, N. J., & Brooks, R. (2017). EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

von Steinbuechel, N., et al. (2012). QOLIBRI overall scale: a brief index of health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 83(11), 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-302361CrossRef

Wu, Y., et al. (2021). Reference values and psychometric properties of the quality of life after traumatic brain injury overall scale in Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Value in Health (Manuscript accpeted for publication)

Robinson, R. (1993). The policy context. BMJ, 307(6910), 994–996. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6910.994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scholtes, V. A., Terwee, C. B., & Poolman, R. W. (2011). “What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable?,” (in eng). Injury, 42(3), 236–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.042CrossRefPubMed

Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 2245–2253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0331-3CrossRefPubMed

10.

Purba, F. D., et al. (2018). Quality of life of the Indonesian general population: Test-retest reliability and population norms of the EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-BREF. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0197098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. S. (2018). “A Systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D,” (in eng). PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Turk, T., et al. (2018). Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0194239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Schleyer, T. K., & Forrest, J. L. (2000). Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2000.0070416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Wyatt, J. C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 426–429. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2000.0070426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Dillman, D., Tortora, R. L., Conradt, J. & Bowker, D. (1998). Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for web surveys. In Proceedings of survey methods section

16.

Couper, M. P. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opin Q, 65(20), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1086/322199CrossRefPubMed

17.

Maas, A. I., et al. (2015). Collaborative european neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI): A prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery, 76(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575CrossRefPubMed

18.

Devlin, N., Parkin, D., & Janssen, B. (2020). Methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data (p. 102). Springer Nature.

19.

Fayers, P. M. M. (2013). Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Wiley, Book

20.

Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(Pt 1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600CrossRef

21.

Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(6), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-mCrossRefPubMed

22.

Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC

23.

Tran, D., Dolgun, A., & Demirhan, H. (2020). Weighted inter-rater agreement measures for ordinal outcomes. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 49(4), 989–1003.CrossRef

24.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb), 22(3), 276–282.CrossRef

25.

Bobak, C. A., Barr, P. J., & O’Malley, A. J. (2018). Estimation of an inter-rater intra-class correlation coefficient that overcomes common assumption violations in the assessment of health measurement scales. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0550-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Mehta, S., et al. (2018). Performance of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as a reliability index under various distributions in scale reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 37(18), 2734–2752. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis (Vol. 2, pp. 131–160)

28.

Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268.CrossRef

29.

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Cramer, D. (1988). Fundamental statistics for social research: step-by-step calculations and computer techniques using SPSS for Windows. Psychology Press

31.

Stahl, M. J. (2003). Encyclopedia of health care management. Sage Publications

32.

Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 61–71.CrossRef

33.

Wilson, L., et al. (2017). Interpreting quality of life after brain injury scores: Cross-walk with the short form-36. Journal of Neurotrauma, 34(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.4287CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wong, G. K., Lam, S. W., Ngai, K., Wong, A., Mok, V., & Poon, W. S. (2014). Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) Overall Scale for patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 21(6), 954–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2013.09.010CrossRefPubMed

35.

Heiberg, G., et al. (2018). Can the health related quality of life measure QOLIBRI- overall scale (OS) be of use after stroke? A validation study. BMC Neurology, 18(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-018-1101-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Wright, K. B. (2005). 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), 1034.

37.

Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & Mayo, F.D.A.P.-R.O.C.M.G. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S94–S105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.xCrossRefPubMed

38.

Jia, H., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2009). Time trends and seasonal patterns of health-related quality of life among U.S. adults," (in eng). Public Health Reports, 124(5), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490912400511CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, USA.CrossRef

40.

Petrolia, D. R., & Bhattacharjee, S. (2009). Revisiting incentive effects: evidence from a random-sample mail survey on consumer preferences for fuel ethanol. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 537–550.CrossRef

41.

Coughlin, S. S., et al. (2011). The effectiveness of a monetary incentive on response rates in a survey of recent US veterans. Survey Practice, 4(1), 1–8.CrossRef

Title: Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded QOLIBRI-OS in the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
Authors: Di Long
Suzanne Polinder
Gouke J. Bonsel
Juanita A. Haagsma
Publication date: 01-10-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Central Nervous System Trauma
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02893-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded QOLIBRI-OS in the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2021

Health-related quality of life in elderly, multimorbid individuals with and without depression and/or mild cognitive impairment using a telemonitoring application

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Estimating the minimum important difference in the DEMQOL instrument in people with dementia

Health-related quality of life after first-ever acute ischemic stroke: associations with cardiovascular health metrics

Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty

Correction to: Health-related quality of life in adults with tetralogy of Fallot repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis