Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2022

The ICECAP-A instrument for capabilities: assessment of construct validity and test–retest reliability in a general Dutch population

Authors: Pieter J. Rohrbach, Alexandra E. Dingemans, Brigitte A. Essers, Eric F. Van Furth, Philip Spinhoven, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Janine A. Van Til, M. Elske Van den Akker-Van Marle

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 3/2022

Abstract

Purpose

The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one’s well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A.

Methods

Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test–retest reliability was evaluated.

Results

In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test–retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test–retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79.

Conclusion

In summary, results suggest adequate test–retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model.

Available only for authorised users

Byford, S., & Sefton, T. (2003). Economic evaluation of complex health and social care interventions. National Institute Economic Review, 186(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/002795010300100114CrossRef

Carr-Hill, R. A. (1989). Assumptions of the QALY procedure. Social Science & Medicine, 29(3), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(89)90296-7CrossRef

Coast, J. (2004). Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? British Medical Journal, 329(7476), 1233–1236. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7476.1233CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pietersma, S., Van den Akker-Van Marle, M. E., & De Vries, M. (2013). Generic quality of life utility measures in health-care research: Conceptual issues highlighted for the most commonly used utility measures. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 173–181.

Goranitis, I., Coast, J., Day, E., Copello, A., Freemantle, N., Seddon, J., Bennett, C., & Frew, E. (2016). Measuring health and broader well-being benefits in the context of opiate dependence: The psychometric performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health, 19(6), 820–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.010CrossRefPubMed

Mitchell, P. M., Al-Janabi, H., Byford, S., Kuyken, W., Richardson, J., Lezzi, A., & Coast, J. (2017). Assessing the validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure for adults with depression. BioMed Central, 17(46), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1211-8CrossRef

Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2CrossRefPubMed

Afentou, N., & Kinghorn, P. (2020). A systematic review of the feasibility and psychometric properties of the ICEpop CAPability measure for adults and its use so far in economic evaluation. Value in Health, 23(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.010CrossRefPubMed

Al-Janabi, H., Peters, T. J., Brazier, J., Bryan, S., Flynn, T. N., Clemens, S., Moody, A., & Coast, J. (2013). An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1831–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0293-5CrossRefPubMed

10.

Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Kaambwa, B., McCaffrey, N., & Richardson, J. (2018). Empirical comparison between capability and two health-related quality of life measures. Social Indicators Research, 140, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1788-9CrossRef

11.

Engel, L., Mortimer, D., Bryan, S., Lear, S. A., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2017). An investigation of the overlap between the ICECAP-A and five preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. PharmacoEconomics, 35(7), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0491-7CrossRefPubMed

12.

Helter, T. M., Coast, J., Łaszewska, A., Stamm, T., & Simon, J. (2020). Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: A comparative review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 29, 1433–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02393-5CrossRefPubMed

13.

Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., Peters, T. J., Bryan, S., & Coast, J. (2015). Test-retest reliability of capability measurement in the UK general population. Health Economics, 24(5), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3100CrossRefPubMed

14.

Holst-Kristensen, A. W., Fonager, K., & Pedersen, K. M. (2020). Test–retest reliability of ICECAP-A in the adult Danish population. Quality of Life Research, 29(2), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02331-5CrossRefPubMed

15.

Linton, M. J., Mitchell, P. M., Al-Janabi, H., Schlander, M., Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Ubels, J., & Coast, J. (2020). Comparing the German translation of the ICECAP-A capability wellbeing measure to the original English version: Psychometric properties across healthy samples and seven health condition groups. Applied Research Quality Life, 15, 651–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9681-5CrossRef

16.

Shahtaheri, R. S., Nikfar, S., Sari, A. A., & Nejad, M. S. Y. (2020). Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric analysis of the Persian version of the ICEpop CAPability measure for adults capability measure in the Iranian general population. Value in Health Regional Issues, 21, 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.01.001CrossRefPubMed

17.

Baji, P., Farkas, M., Dobos, Á., Zrubka, Z., Gulácsi, L., Brodszky, V., Rencz, F., & Péntek, M. (2020). Capability of well-being: Validation of the Hungarian version of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires and population normative data. Quality of Life Research, 29, 2863–2874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02542-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Tang, C., Xiong, Y., Wu, H., & Xu, J. (2018). Adaptation and assessments of the Chinese version of the ICECAP-A measurement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0865-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Xiong, Y., Wu, H., & Xu, J. (2021). Assessing the reliability and validity of the ICECAP-A instrument in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01632-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Van Hoof, M., Jeuring, S. F., Jonkers, D. M., Masclee, A. A., Pierik, M. J., Stokroos, R. J., & Joore, M. A. (2016). De Nederlandse vertaling en indruksvalidatie van de ICECAP-A: Meten van kwaliteit van leven volgens de capability-benadering. Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 94(8), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-016-0109-zCrossRef

21.

EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9CrossRef

22.

Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M. A. A., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health, 19(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003CrossRef

23.

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

24.

Keeley, T., Coast, J., Nicholls, E., Foster, N. E., Jowett, S., & Al-Janabi, H. (2016). An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0430-xCrossRef

25.

Kawai, K., Kawai, A. T., Wollan, P., & Yawn, B. P. (2017). Adverse impacts of chronic pain on health-related quality of life, work productivity, depression and anxiety in a community-based study. Family Practice, 34(6), 656–661. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmx034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Mannell, R. C. (2004). Leisure and health. In J. Haworth & A. J. Veal (Eds.), Work and leisure (pp. 184–199). Routledge.

27.

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.

28.

Gärtner, F. R., De Miranda, E., Rijnders, M. E., Freeman, L. M., Middeldorp, J. M., Bloemenkamp, K. W. M., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Van den Akker-Van Marle, M. E. (2015). Good reliability and validity for a new utility instrument measuring the birth experience, the Labor and Delivery Index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(10), 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.020CrossRefPubMed

29.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic.

30.

Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>3.0.CO;2-ECrossRefPubMed

31.

Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicky, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., & Busschbach, J. (2012). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210CrossRef

33.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2016). The social care guidance manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

34.

Zorginstituut Nederland. (2015). Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Zorginstituut Nederland.

35.

Lundy, J. J., Coons, S. J., Flood, E., & Patel, M. J. (2020). Agreement among paper and electronic modes of the EQ-5D-5L. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 13(4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00419-6CrossRefPubMed

Title: The ICECAP-A instrument for capabilities: assessment of construct validity and test–retest reliability in a general Dutch population
Authors: Pieter J. Rohrbach
Alexandra E. Dingemans
Brigitte A. Essers
Eric F. Van Furth
Philip Spinhoven
Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Janine A. Van Til
M. Elske Van den Akker-Van Marle
Publication date: 01-03-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02980-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The ICECAP-A instrument for capabilities: assessment of construct validity and test–retest reliability in a general Dutch population

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-HCC18 in patients with previously treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Equivalence testing of a newly developed interviewer-led telephone script for the EORTC QLQ-C30

Inequality and heterogeneity in health-related quality of life: findings based on a large sample of cross-sectional EQ-5D-5L data from the Swedish general population

Impact of open-label versus blinded study design on patient-reported outcomes data in randomized clinical trials of immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic cancer patients: a systematic review

BEAUTY and the breast: is adjuvant chemotherapy the right time for a beauty boost? Lessons learned from a large randomized controlled trial

Assessing measurement invariance in the EORTC QLQ-C30