Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/105846
DC Field | Value | |
---|---|---|
dc.title | Do English and Chinese EQ-5D versions demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study | |
dc.contributor.author | Luo, N. | |
dc.contributor.author | Chew, L.-H. | |
dc.contributor.author | Fong, K.-Y. | |
dc.contributor.author | Koh, D.-R. | |
dc.contributor.author | Ng, S.-C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, K.-H. | |
dc.contributor.author | Vasoo, S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Li, S.-C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Thumboo, J. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-10-29T01:51:32Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-10-29T01:51:32Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2003-04-17 | |
dc.identifier.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. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 14777525 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/105846 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.description.uri | http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-7 | |
dc.source | Scopus | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.contributor.department | PHARMACY | |
dc.description.sourcetitle | Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | |
dc.description.volume | 1 | |
dc.description.page | - | |
dc.identifier.isiut | NOT_IN_WOS | |
Appears in Collections: | Staff Publications Elements |
Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | Access Settings | Version | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2003-do_English_Chinese_EQ-5D_versions-pub.pdf | 317.38 kB | Adobe PDF | OPEN | Published | View/Download |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.