Validation of the Mobile App Version of the EQ-5D-5L Quality of Life Questionnaire Against the Gold Standard Paper-Based Version: Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Study participants and patients often perceive (long) questionnaires as burdensome. In addition, paper-based questionnaires are prone to errors such as (unintentionally) skipping questions or filling in a wrong type of answer. Such errors can be prevented with the emergence of mobile questionnaire apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate an innovative way to measure the quality of life using a mobile app based on the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. This validation study compared the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requested by a mobile app with the gold standard paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L. METHODS: This was a randomized, crossover, and open study. The main criteria for participation were participants should be aged ≥18 years, healthy at their own discretion, in possession of a smartphone with at least Android version 4.1 or higher or iOS version 9 or higher, digitally skilled in downloading the mobile app, and able to read and answer questionnaires in Dutch. Participants were recruited by a market research company that divided them into 2 groups balanced for age, gender, and education. Each participant received a digital version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire via a mobile app and the EQ-5D-5L paper-based questionnaire by postal mail. In the mobile app, participants received, for 5 consecutive days, 1 question in the morning and 1 question in the afternoon; as such, all questions were asked twice (at time point 1 [App T1] and time point 2 [App T2]). The primary outcomes were the correlations between the answers (scores) of each EQ-5D-5L question answered via the mobile app compared with the paper-based questionnaire to assess convergent validity. RESULTS: A total of 255 participants (healthy at their own discretion), 117 (45.9%) men and 138 (54.1%) women in the age range of 18 to 64 years, completed the study. To ensure randomization, the measured demographics were checked and compared between groups. To compare the results of the electronic and paper-based questionnaires, polychoric correlation analysis was performed. All questions showed a high correlation (0.64-0.92; P<.001) between the paper-based and the mobile app-based questions at App T1 and App T2. The scores and their variance remained similar over the questionnaires, indicating no clear difference in the answer tendency. In addition, the correlation between the 2 app-based questionnaires was high (>0.73; P<.001), illustrating a high test-retest reliability, indicating it to be a reliable replacement for the paper-based questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the mobile app is a valid tool for measuring the quality of life and is as reliable as the paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L, while reducing the response burden.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".