Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups

Abstract

As the cross-cultural use of outcome measures grows, it is important to determine whether these instruments are: appropriate for use in other settings, translated accurately, and perform in a similar manner to their original tools. This research aimed to compare the validity of the German translation of the ICECAP-A to the original English version of the instrument, across healthy adults and seven health condition groups (arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, hearing loss and heart disease). Data were analysed from a cross-cultural study, which recruited participants through online panels in 2012. Data were analysed on capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D), satisfaction with life (SWLS), and a series of other condition-specific outcome measures. The ICECAP-A was assessed for internal consistency, convergent validity and construct validity. 2501 individuals were included in the analysis. The ICECAP-A demonstrated good internal consistency within Germany and the UK population, and across all seven health condition subgroups (α = .74-.86). In both countries, ICECAP-A scores were significantly correlated with SWLS, SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L scores for healthy participants and health condition groups (r = .35-.77). Finally, experiencing one of the seven health conditions (compared to being healthy) was significantly associated with lower levels of capability wellbeing in the German and UK samples (construct validity). The German translation of the ICECAP-A yielded valid and reliable data, in both healthy respondents and the seven health condition groups. Further work could be undertaken to develop a German specific value-set for the ICECAP-A.

Does Assessing Outcomes in Terms of Capability for Schizophrenic Patients with Depression Provide more Information Than use of the NICE Recommended QALY? - An Empirical Comparison of the OxCAP-MH, ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L Instruments

“…The domains include Stability (being able to feel settled and secure), Attachment (being able to have love, friendship and support), Autonomy (being able to be independent), Achievement (being able to achieve and progress), and Enjoyment (being able to have enjoyment and pleasure) (12). The ICECAP-A has shown validity (16,17,19,24,25) reliability (26,27), responsiveness (28) and feasibility (14) in different populations. Beside the original English language version, it is also available in German (26), Chinese (29), Welsh, Dutch, Danish, Persian and Italian languages (30).…”

“…The ICECAP-A has shown validity (16,17,19,24,25) reliability (26,27), responsiveness (28) and feasibility (14) in different populations. Beside the original English language version, it is also available in German (26), Chinese (29), Welsh, Dutch, Danish, Persian and Italian languages (30). Previous factor analysis comparing the ICECAP-A with the items of EQ-5D-5L (31) and EQ-5D-3L (13,15) found that these instruments measure two different constructs and therefore provide potentially different information.…”

Assessing the reliability and validity of the ICECAP-A instrument in Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Patients

“…The capability score and HRQol score were in uenced by some factors, such as disease and age [16,[23][24][25][26]. In terms of the effect of disease, the lower score might be due to disease, but on the other hand, the score may not be signi cantly lower or higher due to the population's adaptation to disease; in terms of the effect of age, some studies show a positive or negative effect on the score with increasing age, with the reasons that the increased impact of disease with age, especially in the elderly population, and the increased adaptability of the population with age [16,27]. Across the ve dimensions in ICECAP-A, the T2DM patients had the least number of people at the full capability level in the Achievement dimension and the most number of people at the full capability level in the Autonomy dimension, consistent with the results of the Chinese general population [11].…”

“…Unlike most pro le measures used in economic evaluations, the ICECAP-A focuses on wellbeing de ned in a broader sense, rather than health. Most evidence shows that ICECAP-A is reliable and valid [14][15][16][17]. In addition to studies in the general population, which also involved the comparison of ICECAP-A tariff scores for diseases with healthy populations, such as knee pain [18], depression [19], and patients with other chronic conditions.…”

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

“…Other language versions of the ICECAP-O instrument have been developed and validated in Dutch [19], German [20], Spanish [21] and Swedish [22]. ICECAP-A has been validated in Chinese [23] and in German [11]. Nevertheless, no language versions have been available so far for the Central and Eastern European countries.…”