IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i1p5-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of 5 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes Using Item Response Theory Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis G. Fryback

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, dfryback@wisc.edu)

  • Mari Palta

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison)

  • Dasha Cherepanov

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison)

  • Daniel Bolt

    (Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin—Madison)

  • Jee-Seon Kim

    (Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin—Madison)

Abstract

Background. Five health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) indexes—EQ-5D, HUI2, HUI3, QWB-SA, and SF-6D—are each used to assign community-based utility scores to health states, although these scores differ. Objective. The authors transform these indexes to a common scale to understand their interrelationships. Methods. Data were from the National Health Measurement Study, a telephone survey of 3844 US adults. The 5 indexes were analyzed using item response theory analysis to estimate scores on an underlying construct of summary health, θ. Unidimensionality was evaluated using nonlinear principal components analysis. Index scores were plotted against the estimated scores on the common underlying construct. In addition, scores on the Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy Days questions, and self-rated health on a 5-category scale ranging from excellent to poor were plotted. Results. SF-6D and QWB-SA are nearly linear across the range of θ but with a shallow slope; EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 are linear with a steep slope from low θ (poor health) into midrange of θ, then approximately linear with a less steep slope for higher θ (health just below to well above average), although the inflection points differ by index. Conclusion. Simple linear functions may serve as crosswalks among these indexes only for lower health states, albeit with low precision. Ceiling effects make crosswalks among most of the indexes ill specified above a certain level of health. Although each index measures generic health on a utility scale, these indexes are not identical but are relatively simply, if imprecisely, related.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis G. Fryback & Mari Palta & Dasha Cherepanov & Daniel Bolt & Jee-Seon Kim, 2010. "Comparison of 5 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes Using Item Response Theory Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 5-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:5-15
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09347016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09347016
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09347016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magnus Zingmark & Ingeborg Nilsson & Fredrik Norström & Klas Göran Sahlén & Lars Lindholm, 2017. "Cost effectiveness of an intervention focused on reducing bathing disability," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 233-241, September.
    2. Shitong Xie & Jing Wu & Gang Chen, 2024. "Comparative performance and mapping algorithms between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among the Chinese general population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 7-19, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:5-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.