IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v21y2023i6d10.1007_s40258-023-00836-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Evaluation of the PedsQL GCS and CHU9D in Australian Children and Adolescents with Common Chronic Health Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Rakhee Raghunandan

    (University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Kirsten Howard

    (University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Sarah Smith

    (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • Anagha Killedar

    (University of Sydney)

  • Erin Cvejic

    (University of Sydney)

  • Martin Howell

    (University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Stavros Petrou

    (University of Oxford)

  • Emily Lancsar

    (Australian National University)

  • Germaine Wong

    (University of Sydney)

  • Jonathan Craig

    (Flinders University)

  • Alison Hayes

    (University of Sydney)

Abstract

Background Generic instruments such as the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ v4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL GCS) and Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) are widely used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of the general childhood population, but there is a paucity of information about their psychometric properties in children with specific health conditions. This study assessed psychometric properties, including acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness, of the PedsQL GCS and the CHU9D in children and adolescents with a range of common chronic health problems. Methods We used data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), for children aged 10–17 years with at least one of the following six parent-reported health conditions: asthma, anxiety/depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism/Asperger’s, epilepsy, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. The LSAC used parent proxy-reported PedsQL GCS and child self-reported CHU9D assessments. The performance of each instrument (PedsQL GCS and CHU9D) for each psychometric property (acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness) was assessed against established criteria. Results The study sample included 7201 children and adolescents (mean age = 14 years; range 10.1–17.9 years; 49% female) with 15,568 longitudinal observations available for analyses. Across the six health conditions, acceptability of the PedsQL GCS was high, while acceptability for the CHU9D was mixed. Both the PedsQL GCS and CHU9D showed strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha range: PedsQL GCS = 0.70–0.95, CHU9D = 0.76–0.84; item-total correlations range: PedsQL GCS = 0.35–0.84, CHU9D = 0.32–0.70). However, convergent validity for both the PedsQL GCS and CHU9D was generally weak (Spearman’s correlations ≤ 0.3). Known group validity was strong for the PedsQL GCS (HRQOL differences were detected for children with and without asthma, anxiety/depression, ADHD, autism/Asperger’s, and epilepsy). CHU9D was only able to discriminate between children with and without anxiety/depression, ADHD, and autism/Asperger’s. The responsiveness of both the PedsQL GCS and CHU9D was variable across the six conditions, and most of the estimated effect sizes were relatively small (

Suggested Citation

  • Rakhee Raghunandan & Kirsten Howard & Sarah Smith & Anagha Killedar & Erin Cvejic & Martin Howell & Stavros Petrou & Emily Lancsar & Germaine Wong & Jonathan Craig & Alison Hayes, 2023. "Psychometric Evaluation of the PedsQL GCS and CHU9D in Australian Children and Adolescents with Common Chronic Health Conditions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 949-965, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00836-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00836-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00836-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-023-00836-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    2. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    3. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    4. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    5. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    7. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    9. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    11. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    12. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    13. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    14. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    15. Joseph Kwon & Sarah Smith & Rakhee Raghunandan & Martin Howell & Elisabeth Huynh & Sungwook Kim & Thomas Bentley & Nia Roberts & Emily Lancsar & Kirsten Howard & Germaine Wong & Jonathan Craig & Stavr, 2023. "Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Generic Childhood Multi-attribute Utility Instruments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 559-584, July.
    16. Stavros Petrou & Joseph Kwon & Jason Madan, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1043-1061, September.
    17. Simon J Palfreyman & Angela M Tod & John E Brazier & Jonathan A Michaels, 2010. "A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2673-2703, October.
    18. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    19. Catherine Le Galès & Catherine Buron & Nathalie Costet & Sophia Rosman & Gérard Slama, 2001. "Développement d'un index d'états de santé pondéré par les utilités en population française : le Health Utilities Index," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 150(4), pages 71-87.
    20. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00836-2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.