Capability of well-being: validation of the Hungarian version of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires and population normative data

Abstract

Purpose We aimed to develop and assess the psychometric characteristics of the Hungarian language version of two well-being capability measures, the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults/Older people (ICECAP-A/-O), and to establish population norms. Methods A cross-sectional survey was performed involving a representative sample of the Hungarian population. Socio-demographic characteristics, the use and provision of informal care were recorded. The Minimum European Health Module (MEHM), EQ-5D-5L, WHO-5 well-being index, happiness and life satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) measures were applied alongside the ICECAP-A (age-group 18–64) and ICECAP-O (age-group 65+). Results Altogether 1568 and 453 individuals completed the ICECAP-A/-O questionnaires, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86 for both measures (internal consistency). Subgroup analyses showed positive associations between ICECAP-A/-O scores and marital status, employment, income, health status (MEHM) and informal care use (construct validity). Pearson correlations were strong (r > 0.5; p < 0.01) between ICECAP-A/-O indexes and EQ-5D-5L, WHO-5, happiness and satisfaction VAS and SWLS scores (convergent validity). The age, education, and marital status were no longer significant in the multiple regression analysis. Test–retest average (SD) scores were 0.88 (0.11) and 0.89 (0.10) for the ICECAP-A, and equally 0.86 (0.09) for the ICECAP-O (reliability). Conclusion This is the first study to provide ICECAP-A/-O population norms. Also, it is the first to explore associations with WHO-5 well-being index which, alongside the MEHM measures, enable estimates from routinely collected international health statistics. The Hungarian ICECAP-A/-O proved to be valid and reliable measurement tools. Socio-demographic characteristics had minor or no impact on ICECAP-A/-O. Other influencing factors deserve further investigation in future research.

Measuring capabilities in health and physical activity promotion: a systematic review

“…Discriminant validity was ascertained by performing uni-or multivariate analysis [29, 55, 58, 67-69, 71, 73]. Some questionnaires were further been checked regarding their reliability using test-retest analysis [29,38,43,57,62,73,74,77], or regarding their responsiveness via anchor-based analysis [54,66,67]. Moreover, the ICE-CAP-O and the Ox-CAP questionnaire were evaluated comparatively to the EQ-ED questionnaire by correlating their results [59,60,73,75].…”

“…Sample sizes for the identified questionnaires varied substantially, ranging from n = 10 [30] to n = 2501 [70]. For the ICECAP-O, six articles reported on the intended target group of adults over 65 [49,50,53,57,59,62]. Other publications also applied it specifically to people with a medical condition [54,58,61] or within a rehabilitation context [52,55,56,60].…”

“…Both the ICECAP-O and the ICECAP-A were reported to have good construct [49,51,52,64,66], convergent [29,53,55,58,60,62,67,70,71] validity when compared to the EQ-5D instrument to measure generic health status, and discriminant validity [29,55,58,67,71]. The ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A further showed good testretest reliability [29,43,57,62,77] and good internal consistency [29,51,58,70]. In addition, the ICECAP-A was also found to be significantly responsive among adults with knee pain [66] and women with irritative lower urinary tract syndrome [67].…”

Comparing the measurement properties of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O instruments in ages 50–70: a cross-sectional study on a representative sample of the Hungarian general population

“…The data for this study come from a major cross-sectional survey (performed by our research group) with the primary objective to measure the health status and wellbeing of the Hungarian population [9,22]. The survey was conducted by computer-assisted personal interviews on a representative sample for the Hungarian adult population (N = 2023).…”

“…Several studies assessed the validity of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O measures [5,6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. However, no quantitative studies compared the measurement properties of the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O measures among elderly (aged 65 +) respondents [21], who are the target population of both instruments.…”