Measuring the Sensitivity and Construct Validity of 6 Utility Instruments in 7 Disease Areas

Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi, Munir A. Khan, Gang Chen and Aimee Maxwell

Medical Decision Making, 2016, vol. 36, issue 2, 147-159

Abstract: Background. Health services that affect quality of life (QoL) are increasingly evaluated using cost utility analyses (CUA). These commonly employ one of a small number of multiattribute utility instruments (MAUI) to assess the effects of the health service on utility. However, the MAUI differ significantly, and the choice of instrument may alter the outcome of an evaluation. Aims. The present article has 2 objectives: 1) to compare the results of 3 measures of the sensitivity of 6 MAUI and the results of 6 tests of construct validity in 7 disease areas and 2) to rank the MAUI by each of the test results in each disease area and by an overall composite index constructed from the tests. Methods. Patients and the general public were administered a battery of instruments, which included the 6 MAUI, disease-specific QoL instruments (DSI), and 6 other comparator instruments. In each disease area, instrument sensitivity was measured 3 ways: by the unadjusted mean difference in utility between public and patient groups, by the value of the effect size, and by the correlation between MAUI and DSI scores. Content and convergent validity were tested by comparison of MAUI utilities and scores from the 6 comparator instruments. These included 2 measures of health state preferences, measures of subjective well-being and capabilities, and generic measures of physical and mental QoL derived from the SF-36. Results. The apparent sensitivity of instruments varied significantly with the measurement method and by disease area. Validation test results varied with the comparator instruments. Notwithstanding this variability, the 15D, AQoL-8D, and the SF-6D generally achieved better test results than the QWB and EQ-5D-5L.

Keywords: multiattribute utility (MAU); sensitivity; validity; cost utility analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15613522 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:2:p:147-159

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15613522

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().