Bagattini Ângela Maria, Camey Suzi Alves, Miguel Sandro René, Andrade Mônica Viegas, de Souza Noronha Kenya Valeria Micaela, de C Teixeira Monica Akissue, Lima Ana Flávia, Santos Marisa, Polanczyk Carisi Anne, Cruz Luciane Nascimento
Health Technology Assessment Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Health Technology Assessment Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Value Health Reg Issues. 2018 Dec;17:88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2017.11.002. Epub 2018 May 11.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the measurement equivalence of the original paper version of an adapted tablet version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D). METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 509 individuals aged 18 to 64 years from the general population responded to the EQ-5D at two time points separated by a minimum interval of 24 hours and were allocated to one of the following groups: test-retest group (tablet-tablet) or crossover group (paper-tablet and tablet-paper). Agreement between methods was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the κ coefficient. RESULTS: In the crossover group, the following ICC values were obtained: 0.76 (confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.89) for EQ-5D scores and 0.77 (CI 0.68-0.84) for visual analogue scale in subjects responding first to the tablet version; 0.83 (CI 0.75-0.89) for EQ-5D scores and 0.75 (CI 0.67-0.85) for visual analogue scale in subjects responding first to the paper version. In the test-retest group, the ICC was 0.85 (CI 0.73-0.91) for EQ-5D scores and 0.79 (CI 0.66-0.87) for visual analogue scale. The κ values were higher than 0.69 in this group. The internal consistencies of the paper and tablet methods were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The paper and tablet versions of the EQ-5D are equivalent. Test-retest and crossover agreement was high and the acceptability of the methods was similar among individuals.
目的：评估欧洲五维健康量表（EQ - 5D）改编的平板电脑版与原始纸质版在测量上的等效性。 方法：从普通人群中随机抽取509名年龄在18至64岁之间的个体，在至少间隔24小时的两个时间点对EQ - 5D进行作答，并被分配到以下组之一：重测组（平板电脑 - 平板电脑）或交叉组（纸质 - 平板电脑和平板电脑 - 纸质）。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和κ系数来确定方法之间的一致性。 结果：在交叉组中，对于首先作答平板电脑版的受试者，EQ - 5D得分的ICC值为0.76（置信区间[CI] 0.58 - 0.89），视觉模拟量表的ICC值为0.77（CI 0.68 - 0.84）；对于首先作答纸质版的受试者，EQ - 5D得分的ICC值为0.83（CI 0.75 - 0.89），视觉模拟量表的ICC值为0.75（CI 0.67 - 0.85）。在重测组中，EQ - 5D得分的ICC为0.85（CI 0.73 - 0.91），视觉模拟量表的ICC为0.79（CI 0.66 - 0.87）。该组的κ值高于0.69。纸质版和平板电脑版方法的内部一致性相似。 结论：EQ - 5D的纸质版和平板电脑版等效。重测和交叉一致性较高，且这些方法在个体中的可接受性相似。
Value Health Reg Issues. 2018-12
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015-6-3
Patient. 2020-8
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016-9-20
J Formos Med Assoc. 2007-12
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021-12-18
Zotero 插件