Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study aimed to assess psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the EQ-5D-Y (3 levels) with a focus on feasibility, reliability, and construct validity.
Respondents were recruited from the general populations of three cities in Japan. First, children and adolescents responded to the EQ-5D-Y and PedsQL by self-report. Parents were also asked to evaluate the health states of their children/adolescents using proxy versions of these questionnaires. Next, the EQ-5D-Y was mailed to their residence approximately 2 weeks later, and both children/adolescents and their parents responded to the questionnaire. Reliability was confirmed by self-report test–retest methods and a comparison of self-report responses with proxy responses. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated between responses to the EQ-5D-Y and both responses to and scores of the PedsQL in order to assess construct validity.
A total of 654 children/adolescents from aged 8 to 15 (median age: 11) responded to the questionnaires at both the first- and second-stage surveys. Test–retest agreement was sufficiently high and was influenced by age. Proxy test–retest results revealed that parents’ responses were more reliable compared to the self-report results. Some correlations (|r| > 0.3) between items of the EQ-5D-Y and PedsQL were found. Meanwhile, no correlations were found between proxy responses to the EQ-5D-Y and self-report responses to the PedsQL.
The EQ-5D-Y demonstrates reliability and validity among children/adolescents and their parents in Japan. Construct validity of the EQ-5D-Y by self-report was confirmed through comparisons with the PedsQL. Proxy responses to the EQ-5D-Y were more reliable compared to the self-report results, but construct validity was not confirmed in the proxy version.
Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burstrom, K., Cavrini, G., Devlin, N., et al. (2010). Development of the EQ-5D-Y: A child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 875–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.
Group TE. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.
Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2016). Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health, 19(5), 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834.
Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507060-00004.
Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507060-00005.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.
Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.
Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.09.002.
Brazier, J. E., Fukuhara, S., Roberts, J., Kharroubi, S., Yamamoto, Y., Ikeda, S., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(12), 1323–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.022.
Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: An application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.2165/11597900-000000000-00000.
Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 30(8), 729–747. https://doi.org/10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000.
Matza, L. S., Secnik, K., Mannix, S., & Sallee, F. R. (2005). Parent-proxy EQ-5D ratings of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the US and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics, 23(8), 777–790. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523080-00004.
EuroQol Group. (2014). EQ-5D-Y user guide-basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-Y instrument.
Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Rode, C. A. (1999). The PedsQL: Measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Medical Care, 37(2), 126–139.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Duer, W., et al. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 5(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1586/1473722.214.171.1243.
Landgraf, J. M., Maunsell, E., Speechley, K. N., Bullinger, M., Campbell, S., Abetz, L., et al. (1998). Canadian-French, German and UK versions of the Child Health Questionnaire: Methodology and preliminary item scaling results. Quality of Life Research, 7(5), 433–445.
Brauer, C. A., Rosen, A. B., Greenberg, D., & Neumann, P. J. (2006). Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health, 9(4), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.
Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Burwinkle, T. M. (2007). Parent proxy-report of their children’s health-related quality of life: An analysis of 13,878 parents’ reliability and validity across age subgroups using the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-2.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.
Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burstrom, K., Cavrini, G., et al. (2010). Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: Results from a multinational study. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x.
Scott, D., Ferguson, G. D., & Jelsma, J. (2017). The use of the EQ-5D-Y health related quality of life outcome measure in children in the Western Cape, South Africa: Psychometric properties, feasibility and usefulness—A longitudinal, analytical study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0590-3.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993). Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(5), 423–429.
Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Shimozuma, K., Kuranami, M., Suemasu, K., Ohashi, Y., et al. (2011). Comparison of EQ-5D scores among anthracycline-containing regimens followed by taxane and taxane-only regimens for node-positive breast cancer patients after surgery: The N-SAS BC 02 trial. Value Health, 14(5), 746–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.007.
Badia, X., Schiaffino, A., Alonso, J., & Herdman, M. (1998). Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: Feasibility and construct validity. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 311–322.
Savoia, E., Fantini, M. P., Pandolfi, P. P., Dallolio, L., & Collina, N. (2006). Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-47.
Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-6646(08)60078-9.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakas, D., Yfantopoulos, J., Dimitrakaki, C., & Tountas, Y. (2008). Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health, 11(7), 1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00356.x.
Shafie, A. A., Hassali, M. A., & Liau, S. Y. (2011). A cross-sectional validation study of EQ-5D among the Malaysian adult population. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9774-6.
Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 2245–2253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0331-3.
Shafie, A. A., Vasan Thakumar, A., Lim, C. J., & Luo, N. (2018). Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2027-9.
Kreimeier, S., & Greiner, W. (2019). EQ-5D-Y as a health-related quality of life instrument for children and adolescents: The instrument’s characteristics, development, current use, and challenges of developing its value set. Value Health, 22(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.001.
van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y. S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., et al. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health, 15(5), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., Igarashi, A., Noto, S., Saito, S., et al. (2016). Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2.
- Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the EQ-5D-Y by self-report and proxy-report: reliability and construct validity
- Springer International Publishing
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649