IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i1d10.1007_s40273-023-01330-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Psychometric Performance of Common Generic Paediatric Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument Descriptive Systems: Results from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison Study

Author

Listed:
  • Renee Jones

    (The University of Melbourne
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

  • Rachel O’Loughlin

    (The University of Melbourne
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
    Health Services Research Unit, Royal Children’s Hospital)

  • Xiuqin Xiong

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Mina Bahrampour

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (The University of Melbourne)

  • Harriet Hiscock

    (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
    Health Services Research Unit, Royal Children’s Hospital
    The University of Melbourne)

  • Gang Chen

    (Monash University)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Kim Dalziel

    (The University of Melbourne
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric performance of common generic paediatric health-related quality-of-life instrument descriptive systems (PedsQL generic core 4.0, EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, Child Health Utility 9D [CHU9D], Assessment of Quality of Life 6D [AQoL-6D], and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI3]) by child age, report type, and health status. Methods Data for children aged 5–18 years were from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison study. Ceiling effects, test–retest reliability, known-group validity, convergent and divergent validity, and responsiveness were assessed in the total sample and by child age (5–12 years vs 13–18 years), report type (self- vs proxy report), and health status. Instruments were scored using an exploratory level sum score (LSS) approach. Results Survey data were available for 5945 children, with follow-up data available for 2346 children. The EQ-5D-Y-3L demonstrated ceiling effects. The PedsQL, EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, and CHU9D demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability. All instruments demonstrated known-group, convergent, and divergent validity. The EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, and CHU9D demonstrated responsiveness to improvements in health and the PedsQL, EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L, and CHU9D to worsening health. The AQoL-6D and HUI3 had inconclusive test–retest reliability and responsiveness evidence due to small sample size. Importantly, ceiling effects, test–retest reliability and responsiveness varied by subgroup. Conclusion Results reflect instrument performance using LSSs, which may differ to utility scores. In the total sample, the EQ-5D-Y-5L and CHU9D descriptive systems demonstrated evidence of good performance (i.e., meeting prespecified criteria) across all psychometric attributes tested. Performance varied by child age and report type, indicating room for considerations by population and study.

Suggested Citation

  • Renee Jones & Rachel O’Loughlin & Xiuqin Xiong & Mina Bahrampour & Nancy Devlin & Harriet Hiscock & Gang Chen & Brendan Mulhern & Kim Dalziel, 2024. "Comparative Psychometric Performance of Common Generic Paediatric Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument Descriptive Systems: Results from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison Stud," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 39-55, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01330-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01330-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-023-01330-2
    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/s40273-023-01330-2?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. 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.
    2. Katherine Stevens, 2011. "Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 157-169, May.
    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. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    3. Catherine Fantaguzzi & Elizabeth Allen & Alec Miners & Deborah Christie & Charles Opondo & Zia Sadique & Adam Fletcher & Richard Grieve & Chris Bonell & Russell M. Viner & Rosa Legood, 2018. "Health-related quality of life associated with bullying and aggression: a cross-sectional study in English secondary schools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 641-651, June.
    4. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    5. Janine Verstraete & Christopher Booth & Jane Booth & Shazia Peer & Jessica McGuire & Fiona Kritzinger & Taryn Gray & Noluthando Zibi & Primrose Shabangu & Marco Zampoli, 2024. "Fighting to Breathe and Fighting for Health-Related Quality of Life: Measuring the Impact of Being Dependent on Technology for Breathing on the Child and Their Caregiver," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(1), pages 65-82, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Jeff Round, 2018. "Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 641-643, June.
    8. Russell Jago & Byron Tibbitts & Emily Sanderson & Emma L. Bird & Alice Porter & Chris Metcalfe & Jane E. Powell & Darren Gillett & Simon J. Sebire, 2019. "Action 3:30R: Results of a Cluster Randomised Feasibility Study of a Revised Teaching Assistant-Led Extracurricular Physical Activity Intervention for 8 to 10 Year Olds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.
    9. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    10. Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
    11. Karin Dam Petersen & Gang Chen & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 29-37, February.
    12. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    13. Rachel O’Loughlin & Renee Jones & Gang Chen & Brendan Mulhern & Harriet Hiscock & Nancy Devlin & Kim Dalziel, 2024. "Comparing the Psychometric Performance of Generic Paediatric Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments in Children and Adolescents with ADHD, Anxiety and/or Depression," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 57-77, June.
    14. Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Sonia Zhi Yi Soh & Le Ann Chen & Michael Herdman & Nan Luo, 2023. "Psychometric Properties of Generic Preference-Weighted Measures for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 155-174, February.
    15. Xiuqin Xiong & Natalie Carvalho & Li Huang & Gang Chen & Renee Jones & Nancy Devlin & Brendan Mulhern & Kim Dalziel, 2024. "Psychometric Properties of Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) Proxy Version Administered to Parents and Caregivers of Children Aged 2–4 Years Compared with Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 147-161, June.
    16. Carla Guerriero & Abrines Jaume N. & Diaz-Ordaz K. & Brown K. & Wray J. & Ashworth J. & Abbiss M. & Cairns J., 2018. "Using Animation to Self-report Health: a Randomized Experiment with Children," CSEF Working Papers 508, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    17. Julie Ratcliffe & Elisabeth Huynh & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health‐State Values for the Child Health Utility‐9D Using Profile Case Best–Worst Scaling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 486-496, April.
    18. Carla Guerriero & Neus Abrines Jaume & Karla Diaz-Ordaz & Katherine Loraine Brown & Jo Wray & Joan Ashworth & Matt Abbiss & John Cairns, 2020. "Using Animation to Self-Report Health: A Randomized Experiment with Children," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 175-188, April.

    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:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01330-2. 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.