Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) are used as primary or secondary endpoints in multiple sclerosis (MS) research.
Objective:
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the structural, convergent, and known-groups validity of the preference-based multiple sclerosis index (PBMSI) of HRQL in people with MS.
Methods:
Participants were recruited from three MS clinics in Montreal. Structural validity was assessed using polychoric correlation coefficients and factor analysis. To assess convergent validity, hypotheses were formulated about the strength of correlations between the PBMSI and other HRQL measures. Known-groups validity was assessed against different measures of disability.
Results:
The average age of the sample was 46 and 77% were women. Factor analysis supported the structural validity of the PBMSI; the items collectively were measuring one underlying construct. The PBMSI showed convergent validity against generic measures of HRQL, and known-groups validity between persons with different levels of disability.
Conclusion:
The results of this study support the construct validity of the PBMSI as an outcome measure of HRQL in MS. The PBMSI overcomes limitations observed with currently used HRQL measures in MS and may be used to contrast different interventions for people with MS.
MayoN.ISOQOL dictionary of quality of life and health outcomes measurement. Montreal, QC, Canada: Reseau De Recherche Em Santé Des Populations Du Quebec, 2015.
2.
KuspinarARodriguezAMMayoNE.The effects of clinical interventions on health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Mult Scler2012; 18: 1686–1704.
3.
GuyattGHFeenyDHPatrickDL.Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med1993; 118: 622–629.
4.
KindP.The EuroQoL instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Pharmacoeconomics Clin Trials1996; 2: 191–201.
5.
TorranceGWFeenyDHFurlongWJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care1996; 34: 702–722.
6.
FeenyDFurlongWTorranceGW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care2002; 40: 113–128.
7.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM.The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ2002; 21: 271–292.
8.
KuspinarAPickardSMayoNE.Developing a valuation function for the preference-based multiple sclerosis index: Comparison of standard gamble and rating scale. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0151905.
9.
KuspinarAMayoNE.Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis?Health Qual Life Outcomes2013; 11: 71.
10.
KuspinarAFinchLPickardS, et al. Using existing data to identify candidate items for a health state classification system in multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res2014; 23: 1445–1457.
11.
KuspinarABouchardVMorielloC, et al. Development of a bilingual MS-specific health classification system: The preference-based multiple sclerosis index. Int J MS Care2016; 18: 63–70.
12.
De VetHCTerweeCBMokkinkLB, et al. Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
13.
MayoNEBayleyMDuquetteP, et al. The role of exercise in modifying outcomes for people with multiple sclerosis: A randomized trial. BMC Neurol2013; 13: 69.
14.
TorranceGWBoyleMHHorwoodSP.Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res1982; 30: 1043–1069.
15.
FreemanJHobartJLangdonD, et al. Clinical appropriateness: A key factor in outcome measure selection: The 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2000; 68: 150–156.
16.
NortvedtMWRiiseTMyhrK-M, et al. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care2000; 38: 1022–1028.
17.
KuspinarAMayoNE.A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics2014; 32: 759–773.
18.
DolanP.Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care1997; 35: 1095–1108.
19.
JohnsonJALuoNShawJW, et al. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: Are the United States and United Kingdom different?Med Care2005; 43: 221–228.
20.
ShawJWJohnsonJACoonsSJ.US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care2005; 43: 203–220.
21.
RutaDAGarrattAMLengM, et al. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The patient-generated index. Med Care1994; 32: 1109–1126.
22.
PaltamaaJWestHSarasojaT, et al. Reliability of physical functioning measures in ambulatory subjects with MS. Physiother Res Int2005; 10: 93–109.
23.
HoholMOravEWeinerH.Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A longitudinal study comparing disease steps and EDSS to evaluate disease progression. Mult Scler1999; 5: 349–354.
24.
StorerTWDavisJACaiozzoVJ.Accurate prediction of VO2max in cycle ergometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc1990; 22: 704–712.
25.
KaminskyDAKnyazhitskiyASadeghiA, et al. Assessing maximal exercise capacity: Peak work or peak oxygen consumption?Respir Care2014; 59: 90–96.
26.
McHorneyCATarlovAR.Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate?Qual Life Res1995; 4: 293–307.
27.
KaiserHF.A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika1970; 35: 401–415.
AndresenEM.Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: S15–S20.
30.
CasanovaCCelliBBarriaP, et al. The 6-min walk distance in healthy subjects: Reference standards from seven countries. Eur Respir J2011; 37: 150–156.
31.
EnrightPLSherrillDL.Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998; 158: 1384–1387.
32.
LeeDK.Alternatives to P value: Confidence interval and effect size. Korean J Anesthesiol2016; 69: 555–562.
33.
CohenJ.A power primer. Psychol Bull1992; 112: 155–159.
34.
HobartJRiaziALampingD, et al. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: Development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess2004; 8: iii, 1–48.
35.
HobartJCanoS.Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess2009; 13: iii, ix–x, 1–177.
36.
GoodwinEGreenC.A quality-adjusted life-year measure for multiple sclerosis: Developing a patient-reported health state classification system for a multiple sclerosis-specific preference-based measure. Value Health2015; 18: 1016–1024.
37.
GoodwinEGreenCSpencerA.Estimating a preference-based index for an eight-dimensional health state classification system for multiple sclerosis. Value Health2015; 18: 1025–1036.
38.
PoissantLMayoNEWood-DauphineeS, et al. The development and preliminary validation of a preference-based stroke index (PBSI). Health Qual Life Outcomes2003; 1: 43.
39.
RowenDBrazierJYoungT, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health2011; 14: 721–731.
40.
RevickiDALeidyNKBrennan-DiemerF, et al. Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: The multiattribute Asthma symptom utility index. Chest1998; 114: 998–1007.
