Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis.

Feng, Y-S; Kohlmann, T; Peasgood, T; Engel, L; Mulhern, B; Pickard, AS

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis.

Feng, Y-S Kohlmann, T Peasgood, T Engel, L Mulhern, B

Pickard, AS

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer Nature
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Qual Life Res, 2024, 33, (5), pp. 1211-1222
Issue Date:: 2024-05

Recently Added

	Filename	Description	Size
	Scoring the EQ-HWB-S can we do it without value sets A non-parametric item response theory analysis.pdf	Published version	1.31 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is new to OPUS and is not currently available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Feng, Y-S
dc.contributor.author	Kohlmann, T
dc.contributor.author	Peasgood, T
dc.contributor.author	Engel, L
dc.contributor.author	Mulhern, B https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3656-8063
dc.contributor.author	Pickard, AS
dc.date.accessioned	2024-07-24T08:02:56Z
dc.date.available	2024-01-04
dc.date.available	2024-07-24T08:02:56Z
dc.date.issued	2024-05
dc.identifier.citation	Qual Life Res, 2024, 33, (5), pp. 1211-1222
dc.identifier.issn	0962-9343
dc.identifier.issn	1573-2649
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179842
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses. METHODS: Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (HS). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score. RESULTS: EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (HS = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, HS = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, HS = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively. DISCUSSION: As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Springer Nature
dc.relation.ispartof	Qual Life Res
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s11136-024-03601-7
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject	1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1701 Psychology
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services
dc.subject.classification	42 Health sciences
dc.subject.classification	44 Human society
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	United Kingdom
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	United States
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	United States
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	United Kingdom
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	United Kingdom
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	United States
dc.title	Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	33
utslib.location.activity	Netherlands
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
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
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/All Manual Groups
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/All Manual Groups/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE)
utslib.copyright.status	recently_added	*
dc.date.updated	2024-07-24T08:02:51Z
pubs.issue	5
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	33
utslib.citation.issue	5

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses. METHODS: Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (HS). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score. RESULTS: EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (HS = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, HS = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, HS = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively. DISCUSSION: As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/179842