Abstract
IntroductionWhile the EQ-5D-5L has been migrated to several electronic modes, evidence supporting the measurement equivalence of the original paper-based instrument to the electronic modes is limited.ObjectivesThis study was designed to comprehensively examine the equivalence of the paper and electronic modes (i.e., handheld, tablet, interactive voice response [IVR], and web).MethodsAs part of the foundational work for this study, the test–retest reliability of the paper-based, UK English format of the EQ-5D-5L was assessed using a single-group, single-visit, two-period, repeated-measures design. To compare paper and electronic modes, three independent samples were recruited into a three-period crossover study. Each participant was assigned to one of six groups to account for order effects. Descriptive statistics, mean differences (i.e., split-plot analysis of variance [ANOVA]), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.ResultsThe test–retest results showed mean differences near zero and ICC values > 0.90 for both the index and the EQ VAS scores. For the electronic comparisons, mean difference confidence intervals (CIs) for the EQ-5D index scores and EQ VAS scores reflected equivalence of the means across all modes, as the CIs were wholly contained inside the equivalence interval. Further, the ICC 95% lower CIs for the index and EQ VAS scores showed values above the thresholds for denoting equivalence across all comparisons in each sample. No significant mode-by-order interactions were present in any ANOVA model.ConclusionsOverall, our comparisons of the paper, screen-based, and phone-based formats of the EQ-5D-5L provided substantial evidence to support the measurement equivalence of these modes of data collection.
Highlights
While the EQ-5D-5L has been migrated to several electronic modes, evidence supporting the measurement equivalence of the original paper-based instrument to the electronic modes is limited
This study comprehensively examined the equivalence of the EQ-5D-5L on all available electronic modes
A range of educational attainment was present in the sample, with most (n = 34) participants completing either an undergraduate or postgraduate degree, and nine participants attending college/technical college
Summary
While the EQ-5D-5L has been migrated to several electronic modes, evidence supporting the measurement equivalence of the original paper-based instrument to the electronic modes is limited. Results The test–retest results showed mean differences near zero and ICC values > 0.90 for both the index and the EQ VAS scores. The ICC 95% lower CIs for the index and EQ VAS scores showed values above the thresholds for denoting equivalence across all comparisons in each sample. Conclusions Overall, our comparisons of the paper, screen-based, and phone-based formats of the EQ-5D-5L provided substantial evidence to support the measurement equivalence of these modes of data collection. Assessing the measurement equivalence of paper-based instruments compared with the electronic data collection modes to which they have been migrated is recommended to ensure the comparability of scores between the electronic and paper-based modes [1]. Assessing equivalence between and among various electronic modes provides additional evidence supporting the use of a particular
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
