IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/otg/wpaper/1704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets

Author

Listed:
  • Franz Ombler

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Otago, New Zealand)

  • Michael Albert

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Otago, New Zealand)

  • Paul Hansen

    (Department of Economics, University of Otago, New Zealand)

Abstract

High correlation coefficients for EQ-5D value sets derived from different samples, e.g. across countries, are conventionally interpreted as evidence that the people in the respective samples have similar health-related quality of life preferences. However, EQ-5D value sets contain many inherent rankings of health state values by design. By calculating coefficients for value sets created from random data, we demonstrate that ‘high’ correlation coefficients are an artefact of these inherent rankings; e.g. median Pearson’s r = 0.783 for the EQ-5D-3L and 0.850 for the EQ-5D-5L instead of zero. Therefore, high correlation coefficients do not necessarily constitute evidence of ‘true’ associations. After calculating significance levels based on our simulations – available as a resource for other researchers – we find that many high coefficients are not as significant as conventionally interpreted, whereas other coefficients are not significant. These ‘high’ but insignificant correlations are in fact spurious.

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    • Handle: RePEc:otg:wpaper:1704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/economics/otago640091.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    2. Badia, Xavier & Roset, Monserrat & Herdman, Michael, 1999. "Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 943-950, October.
    3. Feng Xie & Kathryn Gaebel & Kuhan Perampaladas & Brett Doble & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014. "Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 8-20, January.
    4. Nancy Devlin & Paul Krabbe, 2013. "The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 1-3, July.
    5. Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya & John Brazier & Aslam Anis, 2012. "Canadian Valuation of EQ-5D Health States: Preliminary Value Set and Considerations for Future Valuation Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Dolan, Paul & Kind, Paul, 1996. "Inconsistency and health state valuations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 609-615, February.
    7. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    8. Nan Luo & Jeffrey A. Johnson & James W. Shaw & Stephen Joel Coons, 2007. "A Comparison of EQ-5D Index Scores Derived from the US and UK Population-Based Scoring Functions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 321-326, May.
    9. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    10. Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Liv Ariane Augestad & Fredrik A. Dahl & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "A Shortcut to Mean-Based Time Tradeoff Tariffs for the EQ-5D?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 569-577, July.
    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. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, August.
    2. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    3. Marian Sorin Paveliu & Elena Olariu & Raluca Caplescu & Yemi Oluboyede & Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Simona Ernu & Luke Vale, 2021. "Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhihao Yang & Jan van Busschbach & Reinier Timman & M F Janssen & Nan Luo, 2017. "Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
    7. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    8. N J Devlin & P Hansen & P Kind & A H Williams, 2000. "The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs," Working Papers 180chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Raymond Oppong & Billingsley Kaambwa & Jacqueline Nuttall & Kerenza Hood & Richard Smith & Joanna Coast, 2013. "The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, April.
    10. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    11. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    12. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    14. Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    15. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    16. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    18. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    19. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    20. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Correlation; statistical significance; EQ-5D; health-related quality of life;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:otg:wpaper:1704. 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: Janet Bryant (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etotanz.html .

    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.