Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70. METHODS: Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baji, Petra, Farkas, Miklós, Dobos, Ágota, Zrubka, Zsombor, Kovács, Levente, Gulácsi, László, Péntek, Márta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8558162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34091797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01325-w
_version_ 1784592494617427968
author Baji, Petra
Farkas, Miklós
Dobos, Ágota
Zrubka, Zsombor
Kovács, Levente
Gulácsi, László
Péntek, Márta
author_facet Baji, Petra
Farkas, Miklós
Dobos, Ágota
Zrubka, Zsombor
Kovács, Levente
Gulácsi, László
Péntek, Márta
author_sort Baji, Petra
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70. METHODS: Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures. RESULTS: 707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R(2) = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures. CONCLUSION: Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10198-021-01325-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8558162
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85581622021-11-15 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 Baji, Petra Farkas, Miklós Dobos, Ágota Zrubka, Zsombor Kovács, Levente Gulácsi, László Péntek, Márta Eur J Health Econ Original Paper OBJECTIVE: The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70. METHODS: Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures. RESULTS: 707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R(2) = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures. CONCLUSION: Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10198-021-01325-w. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-06-06 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8558162/ /pubmed/34091797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01325-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Paper
Baji, Petra
Farkas, Miklós
Dobos, Ágota
Zrubka, Zsombor
Kovács, Levente
Gulácsi, László
Péntek, Márta
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8558162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34091797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01325-w
work_keys_str_mv AT bajipetra comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT farkasmiklos comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT dobosagota comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT zrubkazsombor comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT kovacslevente comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT gulacsilaszlo comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation
AT pentekmarta comparingthemeasurementpropertiesoftheicecapaandicecapoinstrumentsinages5070acrosssectionalstudyonarepresentativesampleofthehungariangeneralpopulation