Quality of Life Research

, 17:933 | Cite as

Evidence on the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 in patients with chronic kidney disease

  • Sara N. Davison
  • Gian S. Jhangri
  • David H. Feeny



This study assessed the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) in the context of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and compared their ability to discriminate between groups of patients with varying disease severity.

Study design and setting

The HUI2 and HUI3 were correlated with the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form, Kidney Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory II in 185 patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD.


About 86% of a priori hypotheses were confirmed for HUI2 and 95% for HUI3, providing support for the construct validity of both measures. Mean (SD) overall utility score for the HUI2 was 0.74 (0.20), significantly higher than that for the HUI3, 0.58 (0.26) (P < 0.001). The cognitive, emotion, and pain attributes of the HUI3 were able to identify a significantly greater proportion of patients with impairment compared to the HUI2.


The results are consistent with construct validity for the HUI2 and HUI3 in patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD. However, the HUI3 appears to have superior psychometric properties compared with the HUI2 in this patient population.


Chronic kidney disease Health-related quality of life Health Utilities Index Utility measurement Validation 



The study was partially funded by a grant award to Sara Davison from the Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada. David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, Ontario, Canada, which distributes copyrighted Health Utilities Index (HUI) materials and provides methodological advice on the use of HUI. The authors acknowledge the useful comments and suggestions provided by three reviewers and the editor.


  1. 1.
    DeOreo, P. B. (2001). The use of patient-based instruments to measure, manage, and improve quality of care in dialysis facilities. Advances in Renal Replacement Therapy, 8(2), 125–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ifudu, O., Paul, H. R., Homel, P., & Friedman, E. A. (1998). Predictive value of functional status for mortality in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. American Journal of Nephrology, 18(2), 109–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McClellan, W. M., Anson, C. A., Birkeli, K., & Tuttle, E. (1991). Functional status and quality of life: Predictors of early mortality among patients entering treatment for end stage renal disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(1), 83–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hays, R. D. (1998). R36 H.S.I. Rand 36—36 health status inventory. Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hays, R. D., Kallich, J. D., Mapes, D. L., Coons, S. J., Amin, N., Carter, W. B., et al. (1997). Kidney disease quality of life short form (dkqol-sf), version 1.3: A manual for use and scoring. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Annual Data Report. (2007). Atlas of end-stage renal disease in the United States. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 49(Supplement 1), S1–S239.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trivedi, H. S., Pang, M. M., Campbell, A., & Saab, P. (2002). Slowing the progression of chronic renal failure: Economic benefits and patients’ perspectives. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 39(4), 721–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lenert, L., & Kaplan, R. M. (2000). Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II138–II150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. (1996). Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Health utilities index (pp. 239–51). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincort-Raven.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health utilities index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 375–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ware, J. E. (1993). SF-36 Health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Centre.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, Texas: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kimmel, P. L. (2001). Psychosocial factors in dialysis patients. Kidney International, 59(4), 1599–1613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newmann, S. P. (2002). A randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention to promote emotional expression and adaptation in individuals with chronic renal failure (CRF) and end stage renal disease (ESRD). UK: National Research Registry.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kimmel, P. L. (2000). Psychosocial factors in adult end-stage renal disease patients treated with hemodialysis: Correlates and outcomes. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 35(4), S132–S140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zimmermann, P. R., Camey, S. A., & Mari, J. J. (2006). A cohort study to assess the impact of depression on patients with kidney disease. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 36(4), 457–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hedayati, S. S., Bosworth, H. B., Kuchibhatla, M., Kimmel, P. L., & Szczech, L. A. (2006). The predictive value of self-report scales compared with physician diagnosis of depression in hemodialysis patients. Kidney International, 69(9), 1662–1668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Manen, J. G., Korevaar, J. C., Dekker, F. W., Boeschoten, E. W., Bossuyt, P. M., & Krediet, R. T. (2003). Adjustment for comorbidity in studies on health status in ESRD patients: Which comorbidity index to use? Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 14(2), 478–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beddhu, S., Bruns, F. J., Saul, M., Seddon, P., & Zeidel, M. L. (2000). A simple comorbidity scale predicts clinical outcomes and costs in dialysis patients. The American Journal of Medicine, 108(8), 609–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Willey.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guyatt, G. H., Berman, L. B., Townsend, M., Pugsley, S. O., & Chambers, L. W. (1987). A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax, 42(10), 773–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Birbeck, G. L., Kim, S., Hays, R. D., & Vickrey, B. G. (2000). Quality of life measures in epilepsy: how well can they detect change over time? Neurology, 54(9), 1822–1827.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson, J. A., & Maddigan, S. L. (2004). Performance of the RAND-12 and SF-12 summary scores in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 449–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 395–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canadian Organ Replacement Register. (2002). Dialysis and renal transplantation. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Institute for Health Information. Report No.: 2001 Report.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhouse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. CMAJ, 163(3), 265–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gorodetskaya, I., Zenios, S., McCulloch, C. E., Bostrom, A., Hsu, C. Y., Bindman, A. B., et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life and estimates of utility in chronic kidney disease. Kidney International, 68(6), 2801–2808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Foley, R. N., Parfrey, P. S., Morgan, J., Barre, P. E., Campbell, P., Cartier, P., et al. (2000). Effect of hemoglobin levels in hemodialysis patients with asymptomatic cardiomyopathy. Kidney International, 58(3), 1325–1335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heidenheim, A. P., Muirhead, N., Moist, L., & Lindsay, R. M. (2003). Patient quality of life on quotidian hemodialysis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 42(1 Suppl), 36–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davison, S. N., Jhangri, G. S., & Feeny, D. (2008). Comparing the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) with the short-form 36 preference-based SF-6D in chronic kidney disease. Value in Health (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara N. Davison
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gian S. Jhangri
    • 3
  • David H. Feeny
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Nephrology & ImmunologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.EdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Center for Health ResearchKaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations