Generation, Selection, and Face Validation of Items for a New Generic Measure of Quality of Life: The EQ-HWB

A Comparison of a Preliminary Version of the EQ-HWB Short and the 5-Level Version EQ-5D

“…Findings from the E-QALY project face validity stage, in which participants related that the term depression has a clinical connotation, suggesting that it can be more difficult to endorse. 16,39 Finally, the final wording of the EQ-HWB-S item related to feelings of sadness brings back the term depression (ie, "I felt sad or depressed"); therefore, the response patterns observed may not hold in future iterations of this instrument. The relative differences in item-level ceiling effects coupled with the EQ-HWB-S broader content coverage entail an improvement in instrument-level ceiling effects.…”

“…The first 4 stages of the E-QALY project culminated in the development of a 25-item profile measure, the EQ-HWB, and a 9-items classifier, the EQ-HWB-S, which could be valued and disseminated on stages 5 and 6. 14,16,17 The EQ-5D items were considered alongside the pool of EQ-HWB candidate items in the psychometric assessment stage of the E-QALY project, and their performance was not inferior to the remaining item pool. Nevertheless, head-to-head comparisons showed that the EQ-5D items were outperformed by the items chosen to integrate the final version of the EQ-HWB-S health classifier.…”

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results

“…The 5 stages of the development the EQ-HWB measures are summarized in Figure 2. 19,[23][24][25][26] Stage 1: Establishing the Domains A review was undertaken of the qualitative literature of the way patients, social care service users, and carers (over the age of 18) report that their conditions, circumstances and related interventions, and impact on their QOL. The methods and results are detailed in a companion article.…”

The role of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development of the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB)

“…The process for identifying potential items and criteria for judging the best item were introduced. The group then discussed the draft items from Stage 2 arranged into themes/sub-themes and considered these from the perspective of a respondent in a future study [15]. They discussed issues ranging from ambiguous interpretation, translation, intrusiveness, social desirability and ease of completion.…”

“…Session 3 began with a presentation of the key findings of the face validity studies (Stage 3) conducted in the UK and internationally [15]. Some examples were provided to show which items had been excluded for consideration, with reasons behind their exclusion.…”