Abstract
ObjectiveThe ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70.MethodsData were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures.Results707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R2 = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures.ConclusionValidity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.
Highlights
There is an increasing demand in health economic evaluations to extend the measurement of benefit beyond health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to capture other important aspects of wellbeing
We investigate whether both ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores can differentiate between the groups hypothesized to differ in their levels of capability
All but two respondents answered all questions on the ICECAP-A instrument, and another two respondents did not answer all questions on the ICECAP-O, which indicate good feasibility of both instruments
Summary
There is an increasing demand in health economic evaluations to extend the measurement of benefit beyond health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to capture other important aspects of wellbeing. The ICECAP instruments [the ICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for adults) and ICECAP-O (ICEpop CAPability measure for older people)] have been developed to serve such purpose and have gained popularity in the recent years These are preference-based wellbeing measures, building on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which defines wellbeing in terms of an individual’s ability and capability to do certain things that are important in life [1]. A more general version, the ICECAP-A instrument has been created for the use among the general adult population of 18 years and older [8] Both measures cover five domains of wellbeing (ICECAP-A: attachment, stability, achievement, enjoyment, autonomy; ICECAP-O: attachment, security, role, enjoyment, control) that were found to be important to their target population in the UK by qualitative research [7, 8]. The largest differences appear in the stability/security and achievement/role domains, where there is more emphasis on concerns (‘thinking about the future’) and feeling valuable (‘doing things that make you feel valued’) in the ICECAP-O, while stability (‘feeling settled and secure’) and evolution (‘achievement and progress’) are in focus in the ICECAP-A
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
