Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-7
Title: Do English and Chinese EQ-5D versions demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study
Authors: Luo, N. 
Chew, L.-H.
Fong, K.-Y.
Koh, D.-R.
Ng, S.-C.
Yoon, K.-H.
Vasoo, S.
Li, S.-C. 
Thumboo, J.
Issue Date: 17-Apr-2003
Citation: Luo, N.,Chew, L.-H.,Fong, K.-Y.,Koh, D.-R.,Ng, S.-C.,Yoon, K.-H.,Vasoo, S.,Li, S.-C.,Thumboo, J. (2003-04-17). Do English and Chinese EQ-5D versions demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1 : -. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-7
Abstract: Background: Although multiple language versions of health-related quality of life instruments are often used interchangeably in clinical research, the measurement equivalence of these versions (especially using alphabet vs pictogram-based languages) has rarely been assessed. We therefore investigated the measurement equivalence of English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D, a widely used utility-based outcome instrument. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, either EQ-5D version was administered to consecutive outpatients with rheumatic diseases. Measurement equivalence of EQ-5D item responses and utility and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores between these versions was assessed using multiple regression models (with and without adjusting for potential confounding variables), by comparing the 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of score differences between these versions with pre-defined equivalence margins. An equivalence margin defined a magnitude of score differences (10% and 5% of entire score ranges for item responses and utility/EQ-VAS scores, respectively) which was felt to be clinically unimportant. Results: Sixty-six subjects completed the English and 48 subjects the Chinese EQ-5D. The 95%CI of the score differences between these versions overlapped with but did not fall completely within pre-defined equivalence margins for 4 EQ-5D items, utility and EQ-VAS scores. For example, the 95%CI of the adjusted score difference between these EQ-5D versions was -0.14 to +0.03 points for utility scores and -11.6 to +3.3 points for EQ-VAS scores (equivalence margins of -0.05 to +0.05 and -5.0 to +5.0 respectively). Conclusion: These data provide promising evidence for the measurement equivalence of English and Chinese EQ-5D versions. © 2003 Luo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Source Title: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
URI: http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/105846
ISSN: 14777525
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-7
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
2003-do_English_Chinese_EQ-5D_versions-pub.pdf317.38 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

45
checked on Nov 16, 2018

Page view(s)

43
checked on Nov 16, 2018

Download(s)

4
checked on Nov 16, 2018

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.