The ICECAP-A Instrument for Capabilities: Assessment of Construct Validity and Test-retest Reliability in a General Dutch Population

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2021 Aug 31

PMID 34463861

Citations 5

Authors

Pieter J Rohrbach

Alexandra E Dingemans

Brigitte A Essers

Eric F van Furth

Philip Spinhoven

Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Janine A van Til

M Elske van den Akker-van Marle

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one's well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A.

Methods: Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test-retest reliability was evaluated.

Results: In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test-retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79.

Conclusion: In summary, results suggest adequate test-retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model.

Citing Articles

Changes on clinical and participatory outcomes in people with severe-to-profound hearing loss after cochlear implantation: protocol of a multicentre prospective observational cohort study - Societal Merit of Intervention on Hearing Loss Evaluation....

Nijmeijer H, Huinck W, Kramer S, Donders A, van der Wilt G, Mylanus E BMJ Open. 2023; 13(6):e072689.

PMID: 37369408 PMC: 10410821. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072689.

The role of self-efficacy, well-being capability and diabetes care assessment for emotional and diabetes management challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a follow-up study.

Tapager I, Joensen L, Vrangbaek K Soc Sci Med. 2022; 310:115276.

PMID: 36063674 PMC: 9395231. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115276.

Psychometric evaluation of the Mental Health Quality of Life (MHQoL) instrument in seven European countries.

Enzing J, van Krugten F, Sabat I, Neumann-Bohme S, Boer B, Knies S Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022; 20(1):129.

PMID: 36050766 PMC: 9434504. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-02041-6.

The assessment of psychometric properties for the subjective wellbeing-5 dimensions (SWB-5D) questionnaire in the general Dutch population.

Haspels H, de Vries M, Elske van den Akker-van Marle M Qual Life Res. 2022; 32(1):237-245.

PMID: 35986860 PMC: 9392428. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03234-8.

Cost-effectiveness of three internet-based interventions for eating disorders: A randomized controlled trial.

Rohrbach P, Dingemans A, van Furth E, Spinhoven P, van Ginkel J, Bauer S Int J Eat Disord. 2022; 55(8):1143-1155.

PMID: 35748112 PMC: 9546196. DOI: 10.1002/eat.23763.

References

Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Peters T, Bryan S, Coast J . Test-retest reliability of capability measurement in the UK general population. Health Econ. 2014; 24(5):625-30. PMC: 4405059. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3100. View

Carr-Hill R . Assumptions of the QALY procedure. Soc Sci Med. 1989; 29(3):469-77. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90296-7. View

Helter T, Coast J, Laszewska A, Stamm T, Simon J . Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2019; 29(6):1433-1464. PMC: 7253529. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02393-5. View

Baji P, Farkas M, Dobos A, Zrubka Z, Gulacsi L, Brodszky V . Capability of well-being: validation of the Hungarian version of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires and population normative data. Qual Life Res. 2020; 29(10):2863-2874. PMC: 7561558. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02542-1. View

Koo T, Li M . A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. PMC: 4913118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. View

Janssen M, Pickard A, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L . Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1717-27. PMC: 3764313. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. View

Holst-Kristensen A, Fonager K, Pedersen K . Test-retest reliability of ICECAP-A in the adult Danish population. Qual Life Res. 2019; 29(2):547-557. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02331-5. View

Gartner F, de Miranda E, Rijnders M, Freeman L, Middeldorp J, Bloemenkamp K . Good reliability and validity for a new utility instrument measuring the birth experience, the Labor and Delivery Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(10):1184-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.020. View

Walter S, Eliasziw M, Donner A . Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998; 17(1):101-10. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::aid-sim727>3.0.co;2-e. View

10.

Kawai K, Kawai A, Wollan P, Yawn B . Adverse impacts of chronic pain on health-related quality of life, work productivity, depression and anxiety in a community-based study. Fam Pract. 2017; 34(6):656-661. PMC: 6260800. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx034. View

11.

Coast J . Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values?. BMJ. 2004; 329(7476):1233-6. PMC: 529373. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7476.1233. View

12.

Engel L, Mortimer D, Bryan S, Lear S, Whitehurst D . An Investigation of the Overlap Between the ICECAP-A and Five Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(7):741-753. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0491-7. View

13.

M Versteegh M, Vermeulen K, Evers S, de Wit G, Prenger R, Stolk E . Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016; 19(4):343-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003. View

14.

Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J . Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(1):167-76. PMC: 3254872. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2. View

15.

Al-Janabi H, Peters T, Brazier J, Bryan S, Flynn T, Clemens S . An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1831-40. PMC: 3764327. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0293-5. View

16.

Afentou N, Kinghorn P . A Systematic Review of the Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the ICEpop CAPability Measure for Adults and Its Use So Far in Economic Evaluation. Value Health. 2020; 23(4):515-526. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.010. View

17.

Lundy J, Coons S, Flood E, Patel M . Agreement Among Paper and Electronic Modes of the EQ-5D-5L. Patient. 2020; 13(4):435-443. PMC: 7340667. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00419-6. View

18.

Xiong Y, Wu H, Xu J . Assessing the reliability and validity of the ICECAP-A instrument in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021; 19(1):5. PMC: 7788876. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01632-5. View

19.

Mitchell P, Al-Janabi H, Byford S, Kuyken W, Richardson J, Iezzi A . Assessing the validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure for adults with depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2017; 17(1):46. PMC: 5289054. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1211-8. View

20.

Goranitis I, Coast J, Day E, Copello A, Freemantle N, Seddon J . Measuring Health and Broader Well-Being Benefits in the Context of Opiate Dependence: The Psychometric Performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L. Value Health. 2016; 19(6):820-828. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.010. View