Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study.

Engel, L; Kosowicz, L; Bogatyreva, E; Batchelor, F; Devlin, N; Dow, B; Gilbert, AS; Mulhern, B; Peasgood, T; Viney, R

Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study.

Engel, L Kosowicz, L Bogatyreva, E Batchelor, F Devlin, N Dow, B Gilbert, AS Mulhern, B Peasgood, T Viney, R

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer Nature
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Patient, 2023, 16, (6), pp. 655-666
Issue Date:: 2023-11

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care A Think-Aloud Study.pdfAdobe PDF (651.31 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Engel, L
dc.contributor.author	Kosowicz, L
dc.contributor.author	Bogatyreva, E
dc.contributor.author	Batchelor, F
dc.contributor.author	Devlin, N
dc.contributor.author	Dow, B
dc.contributor.author	Gilbert, AS
dc.contributor.author	Mulhern, B
dc.contributor.author	Peasgood, T
dc.contributor.author	Viney, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-9635
dc.date.accessioned	2023-11-20T01:38:18Z
dc.date.available	2023-08-28
dc.date.available	2023-11-20T01:38:18Z
dc.date.issued	2023-11
dc.identifier.citation	Patient, 2023, 16, (6), pp. 655-666
dc.identifier.issn	1178-1653
dc.identifier.issn	1178-1661
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173474
dc.description.abstract	OBJECTIVE: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are 'on their face' when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care. METHODS: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model. RESULTS: In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Springer Nature
dc.relation	EuroQol Research Foundation
dc.relation.ispartof	Patient
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences
dc.subject.classification	32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
dc.subject.classification	42 Health sciences
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Retrospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Retrospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	16
utslib.location.activity	New Zealand
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-11-20T01:38:16Z
pubs.issue	6
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	16
utslib.citation.issue	6

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are 'on their face' when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care. METHODS: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model. RESULTS: In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173474