Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population
To determine the psychometric properties and performance of Malay and English versions of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive instrument in the general Malaysian population.
1137 members of the Malaysian general public were sampled in this national study. Respondents were recruited by quota sampling of urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity. In face-to-face interviews, respondents first answered the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire administered using the EQ-Valuation Technology software, and then completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire on paper. A subgroup of the respondents were given paper form of EQ-5D-5L for completion within 2 weeks for test–retest reliability. Ceiling effects, response redistribution, informativity, and convergent validity were compared between EQ-5D-5L and ED-5D-3L separately by Malay and English language versions.
The proportion of ‘full health’ responses (11111) drastically decreased by 25.55% and 15.74% in the Malay and English language versions indicating lower ceiling effects in EQ-5D-5L. Inconsistencies from response redistribution was below 6% for all dimensions across languages. The measure of relative informativity was comparatively higher in EQ-5D-5L than in EQ-5D-3L in both language versions, with the exception of dimensions mobility and pain/discomfort in the English version. Convergent validity in terms of correlation with EQ-VAS was relatively better for EQ-5D-5L dimensions, with pain/discomfort of the Malay version having the strongest correlation (|r| = 0.37). Also, reliability testing revealed moderate to poor agreements on all 5L dimensions.
EQ-5D-5L fared better in terms of psychometric performance compared to EQ-5D-3L for both language versions. This encourages the application of the EQ-5D-5L in health-related research in Malaysia.
KeywordsEQ-5D-5L EQ-5D-3L Psychometric properties Validity Reliability
This study was co-funded by EuroQol Research Foundation and Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Research University Grant.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Nan Luo is a member of EuroQol Research Foundation. There is no other conflict of interest.
The study received ethical approval from the Malaysia Medical Research & Ethics Committee (ID NMRR-13-1377-18574) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Gudex, C. (2006). The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In P. Kind, R. Brooks & R. Rabin (Eds.), EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 19–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- 10.Oppe, M., & Van Hout, B. (2017). The ‘‘power’’ of eliciting EQ-5D-5L values: the experimental design of the EQ-VT. EuroQol Working Paper Series, 17003.Google Scholar
- 11.Department of Statistics Malaysia Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010. https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09.
- 13.Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.Google Scholar
- 14.Faridah, A., Jamaiyah, H., Goh, A., & Soraya, A. (2010). The validation of the EQ-5D in Malaysian dialysis patients. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 65(Suppl A), 114–119.Google Scholar
- 19.Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y.-S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Greene, M. E., Rader, K. A., Garellick, G., Malchau, H., Freiberg, A. A., & Rolfson, O. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 473(11), 3383–3390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4091-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1707–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Bagattini, ÂM., Camey, S. A., Miguel, S. R., Andrade, M. V., de Souza Noronha, K. V. M., de M. A. D. C. Teixeira, et al (2018). Electronic version of the EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire: Adaptation to a Brazilian population sample. Value in Health Regional Issues, 17, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2017.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality Of Life Research: An International Journal Of Quality Of Life Aspects Of Treatment, Care And Rehabilitation, 25(3), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar