Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38381281›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis.

You-Shan Feng, Thomas Kohlmann, Tessa Peasgood, Lidia Engel, Brendan Mulhern, A Simon Pickard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The psychometric performance of the EQ-HWB-9 for measuring health and wellbeing in a general population sample from Australia and New Zealand.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

You-Shan FengInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometrics, Medical University of Tübingen, Silcherstraße 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. you-shan.feng@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-3409
Thomas KohlmannInstitute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Tessa PeasgoodDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Lidia EngelMonash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
A Simon PickardDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation 127-2020RA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnly one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses.

methodsData from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (H

resultsEQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (H DISCUSSION: As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.

Indexed as

PsychometricsQuality of LifeAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomUnited StatesEQ-HWB-SLevel sum scoreMokken scalingNon-parametric item response theoryNon-preference scoring approachesUnweighted summary score

Identifiers

PMID38381281
PMCPMC11045574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.