Comparison of the measurement properties and consistency between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L in adolescents aged 15–17 in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the measurement properties and consistency between the Chinese versions of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L among Chinese adolescent populations aged 15-17 years. METHODS: Chinese adolescents aged 15-17 studying in high school were recruited through online survey. Social-demographic characteristics and self-reported EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L responses were collected in the survey. The consistency of responses between the two measures was assessed using redistribution property, and the consistency of utility values was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Convergent validity and known-group validity were examined using Spearman's rank correlation, F-test and effect sizes, respectively. Sensitivity was compared using relative efficiency (RE). RESULTS: 762 respondents (48.8% male; age 15-17 years;) were recruited. The EQ-5D-3L showed a more severe ceiling effect than EQ-5D-Y-3L (78.2% vs. 66.0%). Respondents reported higher proportions of having problems in four dimensions using the EQ-5D-Y-3L than using the EQ-5D-3L. The consistency of corresponding dimensions between the two measures was relatively good, while non-negligible proportions of inconsistency were observed in "pain/discomfort" (11.4%) and "anxiety/depression" (15.7%) dimensions. The ICC of the utility values between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L was 0.852 (p < 0.001). The Spearman's rank correlation (range: 0.385-0.620) indicated an acceptable convergent validity between the correlative dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L. The EQ-5D-Y-3L had a higher efficiency than the EQ-5D-3L at detecting differences across EQ VAS subgroups (ES = 1.793 for EQ-5D-3L, ES = 1.920 for EQ-5D-Y-3L). Mixed results were observed in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Both the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-Y-3L are demonstrated to be valid and generally consistent for measuring HRQoL among adolescents aged 15-17 years in China. Respondents reported higher proportions of having problems using the EQ-5D-Y-3L than using the EQ-5D-3L. More research is warranted to compare the discriminant validity and test-retest reliability between the two measures.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".