Abstract
Objective
To set out the methodological process for using Rasch analysis alongside classical psychometric methods in the development of a health-state classification that is amenable to valuation.
Methods
The overactive bladder questionnaire is used to illustrate a five step process for deriving a reduced health-state classification from an existing non-preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument. Step I uses factor analysis to establish instrument dimensions, step II excludes items that do not meet the initial validation process and step III uses criteria based on Rasch analysis and other psychometric testing to select the final items for the health-state classification. In step IV, item levels are examined and Rasch analysis is used to explore the possibility of reducing the number of item levels. Step V repeats steps I–IV on alternative data sets in order to validate the selection of items for the health-state classification.
Results
The techniques described enable the construction of a five-dimension health-state classification, the OAB-5D, amenable to valuation tasks that will allow the derivation of preference weights.
Conclusions
The health-related quality of life of patients with conditions like overactive bladder can be valued and quality adjustment weights estimated for calculation of quality-adjusted life years.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- DIF:
-
Differential item functioning
- HRQL:
-
Health-related quality of life
- Non-PBM:
-
Non-preference-based measure
- MAUT:
-
Multiatribute utility theory
- OAB:
-
Overactive bladder syndrome
- OAB-q:
-
Overactive bladder questionnaire
- PBM:
-
Preference-based measure
- PSI:
-
Person separation index
- QALY:
-
Quality-adjusted life years
- SG:
-
Standard gamble
- SRM:
-
Standardised response mean
- TTO:
-
Time-trade off
References
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, R. (1996). EQ-5D, the current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., et al. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.
Brazier, J. E., Deverill, M., Harper, R., Booth, A., et al. (1999). A review of the use of Health Status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3(9), 1–147.
Coast, J. (1992). Reprocessing data to form QALYs. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 305(6845), 87–90.
Fryback, D. G., Dasbach, E. J., Klein, R., et al. (1993). The Bever Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalogue of health-state quality factors. Medical Decision Making, 13, 89–102. doi:10.1177/0272989X9301300202.
Nichol, M. B., Sengupta, N., & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality adjusted life-years: Estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21, 105–112. doi:10.1177/02729890122062352.
Tsuchyia, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., Parkin, D., et al. (2002). Deriving preference-based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ-5D indices. Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper Series No. 02/01, Accessed from http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/87/47/DP0201.pdf.
Brazier, J., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., et al. (2007). Review of methods for mapping between measures of health related quality of life onto generic preference-based measures: a road to nowhere? Paper Presented at the Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Brunel University, Uxbridge.
Gray, A., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26, 18–29. doi:10.1177/0272989X05284108.
Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted 1980.
Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2005). Estimation of a preference based index measure of health for the SF-12 and comparison to the SF-36. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d.
Yang, Y., Brazier, J., Tsuchyia, A., Coyne, K., et al. (2009). Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB_q). Value in Health, 12(1).
Abrams, P., Cardozo, L., Fall, M., et al. (2002). The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Report from the Standardization Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 21, 167–178. doi:10.1002/nau.10052.
Kobelt, G., Kirchberger, I., & Malone-Lee, J. (1999). Quality-of-life aspects of the overactive bladder and the effect of treatment with tolterodine. BJU International, 83(6), 583–590. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00004.x.
Coyne, K. S., Matza, L. S., & Thompson, C. L. (2005). The responsiveness of the overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q). Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 849–855. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0706-1.
Coyne, K., Revicki, D., Hunt, T., et al. (2002). Psychometric validation of an overactive bladder symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire: The OAB-q. Quality of Life Research, 11(6), 563–574. doi:10.1023/A:1016370925601.
Matza, L. S., Thompson, C. L., Krasnow, J., Brewster-Jordan, J., Zyczynski, T., & Coyne, K. S. (2005). Test-retest reliability of four questionnaires for patients with overactive bladder: The overactive bladder questionnaire (OAB-q), patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC), urgency questionnaire (UQ), and the primary OAB symptom questionnaire (POSQ). Neurourology and Urodynamics, 24(3), 215–225. doi:10.1002/nau.20110.
Siami, P., Seidman, L. S., & Lama, D. (2002). A multicentre, prospective, open-label study of tolterodine extended-release 4 mg for overactive bladder: The speed of onset of therapeutic assessment trial (STAT). Clinical Therapeutics, 24(4), 616–628. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(02)85137-2.
Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Min Lai, S., & Perera, S. (2003). Glycine antagonist in neuroprotection Americans investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(7), 950–963. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2.
Gilworth, G., Chamberlain, M. A., Bhakta, B., Haskard, D., Silman, A., & Tennant, A. (2004). Development of the BD-HRQL: A quality of life measure specific to Behcet’s disease. The Journal of Rheumatology, 31(5), 931–937.
Pesudovs, K., Garamendi, E., & Elliott, D. B. (2004). The quality of life impact of refractive correction (QIRC) questionnaire: Development and validation. Optometry and Vision Science, 81(10), 769–777. doi:10.1097/00006324-200410000-00009.
Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IHRQLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 15(11), 1203–1214. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00112-7.
White, L. J., & Velozo, C. A. (2002). The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(6), 822–831. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.32685.
Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J., & Prieto, L. (2004). Content-based interpretation aids for health-related quality of life measures in clinical practice. An example for the visual function index (VF-14). Quality of Life Research, 13(1), 35–44. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000015298.09085.b0.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feeny, D. (2002). The utility approach to assessing population health. In C. Murray, J. Salomon, C. Mathers, & A. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics. measurement and applications (pp. 515–528). Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Chatfield, C., & Collins, A. J. (1980). Introduction to multivariate analysis. Cambridge: Chapman and Hall; University Press.
Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103–122.
Kubinger, K. D. (2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model–some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5(4), 377–394. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0504_3.
Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Tennant, A., McKenna, S. P., & Hagell, P. (2004). Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value in Health, 7(Supplement 1), S22–S26. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s106.x.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., et al. (2002). Clinical significance consensus meeting group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.
Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models (RUMM) 2020 ©. RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd 1997-2004.
SPSS for Windows.Release. 14.0.1. 2005. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 2005.
Acknowledgments
This study is funded by Pfizer Inc. John Brazier is funded by the Medical Research Council Health Service Research Collaboration. Zoe Kopp provided advice throughout the study. The Trial I and Trial II datasets were provided by Pfizer Inc. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, T., Yang, Y., Brazier, J.E. et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 18, 253–265 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9428-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9428-0