Scholarlink

Objective <p>To evaluate the comparative performance of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in the general population of Quebec (Canada), Tehran (Iran), and Japan.</p> Methods <p>Data on SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were collected in the three countries. Descriptive differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were assessed using t-tests, as well as ceiling effects were evaluated based on the percentage of “no problem” levels reported. The known-group validity of both measures was assessed by comparing utility scores across health and demographic subgroups using t-tests or ANOVA and by calculating effect sizes across known groups. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis and F-statistic ratios were used to further validate the findings from the known-group validity analyses. Convergent validity for both instruments was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The agreement between instruments was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots.</p> Results <p>A total of 2,378 respondents for Quebec, 3,061 for Tehran, and 3,933 for Japan were included. Differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were statistically significant, with SF-6Dv2 generally yielding lower utility scores. Both instruments demonstrated strong known-group validity, effectively distinguishing between diseased and healthy groups as well as various demographic characteristics. However, EQ-5D-5L outperformed SF-6Dv2 for most demographic characteristics based on AUROC analysis and F-statistic ratios. In contrast, their performance in distinguishing between healthy and diseased groups did not favor a particular instrument. Convergent validity analyses indicated strong associations between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values in Quebec (0.760) and Tehran (0.737). The agreement between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values was moderate in Quebec (0.69) and strong in Tehran (0.837). Bland–Altman plots indicated that differences between the two instruments tended to increase as the average score decreased.</p> Conclusion <p>Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 demonstrated favorable psychometric performance in terms of known-group validity and convergent validity. These findings suggest that both instruments are valid tools for health utility measurement for use in general population.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A cross-country comparison of the psychometric performance of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月5日

查看全文
  • Hosein Ameri,
  • Brendan Mulhern,
  • Richard Norman,
  • Takeru Shiroiwa,
  • Rajabali Daroudi,
  • Thomas G. Poder

摘要

Objective

To evaluate the comparative performance of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in the general population of Quebec (Canada), Tehran (Iran), and Japan.

Methods

Data on SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were collected in the three countries. Descriptive differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were assessed using t-tests, as well as ceiling effects were evaluated based on the percentage of “no problem” levels reported. The known-group validity of both measures was assessed by comparing utility scores across health and demographic subgroups using t-tests or ANOVA and by calculating effect sizes across known groups. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis and F-statistic ratios were used to further validate the findings from the known-group validity analyses. Convergent validity for both instruments was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The agreement between instruments was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots.

Results

A total of 2,378 respondents for Quebec, 3,061 for Tehran, and 3,933 for Japan were included. Differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were statistically significant, with SF-6Dv2 generally yielding lower utility scores. Both instruments demonstrated strong known-group validity, effectively distinguishing between diseased and healthy groups as well as various demographic characteristics. However, EQ-5D-5L outperformed SF-6Dv2 for most demographic characteristics based on AUROC analysis and F-statistic ratios. In contrast, their performance in distinguishing between healthy and diseased groups did not favor a particular instrument. Convergent validity analyses indicated strong associations between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values in Quebec (0.760) and Tehran (0.737). The agreement between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values was moderate in Quebec (0.69) and strong in Tehran (0.837). Bland–Altman plots indicated that differences between the two instruments tended to increase as the average score decreased.

Conclusion

Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 demonstrated favorable psychometric performance in terms of known-group validity and convergent validity. These findings suggest that both instruments are valid tools for health utility measurement for use in general population.