Abstract
Objective
The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70.
Methods
Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures.
Results
707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R2 = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures.
Conclusion
Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.
The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70.
Methods
Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures.
Results
707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R2 = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures.
Conclusion
Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1453-1466 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | European Journal of Health Economics |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| Early online date | 6 Jun 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Open access funding provided by Corvinus University of Budapest. This research was supported by the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities in the framework of the ‘Financial and Public Services’ research project (20764-3/2018/FEKUTSTRAT) at Corvinus University of Budapest.
Funding Information:
In connection with writing this article, Petra Baji, and Márta Péntek received grant support from the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in the framework of the ‘Financial and Public Services’ research project (NKFIH-1163-10/2019 and NKFIH-2020) at Corvinus University of Budapest. Miklós Farkas received Grant support from the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in the framework of the ‘Financial and Public Services’ research project (NKFIH-2020) at Corvinus University of Budapest. Ágota Dobos received grant support from the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in the framework of the ‘Financial and Public Services’ research project (NKFIH-1163-10/2019) at Corvinus University of Budapest. The work of Márta Péntek and László Gulácsi was supported by Project no. 2019-1.3.1-KK-2019-00007 that has been implemented with the support provided from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the 2019-1.3.1-KK funding scheme. In connection with this project, Zrubka Zsombor has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement no 679681). Márta Péntek is member of the EuroQol Group, a not-for-profit organisation that develops and distributes instruments that assess and value health. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol
Keywords
- Capability
- ICECAP-A
- ICECAP-O
- Validity
- EQ-5D-5L