Table 5 Convergent validity (9 studies)
From: Assessing the psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L in dementia: a systematic review
Study references (author, year) | Other HRQoL measures examined for correlation | Significant correlations | Regression analysis undertaken | Regression analysis shows significant relationship yes/no |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Easton, 2018 [14] | DEMQoL-U and DEMQoL-proxy-U | Yes—EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-U (r = 0.346); EQ-5D-5L utilities and DEMQOL-U (r = 0.389) | No | NA |
Griffiths, 2020 [27] | QUALID, DEMQoL-proxy, QoL-AD nursing home | Yes—EQ-5D-5L self-report with QUALID staff (r = 0.11) and relative proxy (r = 0.33), QoL-AD self-report (r = 0.3), DEMQoLstaff (r = 0.12) and DEMQoL relative proxy (0.39) | No | NA |
Janssen, 2018 [24] | ICECAP-O | Yes—positive significant correlation between ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L utilities at baseline (r = 0.47) | No | NA |
Martin, 2019 [28] | DEMQoL-Proxy-U, QOL-AD-NH, QUALID | Yes—resident-reported EQ-5D-5L and formal-carer–completed QUALID (r rated as high but authors—exact figure not reported) | Yes | Yes |
Perry-Duxbury, 2020 [25] | ICECAP-O in the informal caregiver | Yes—ICECAP-O tariff significantly associated with EQ-5D-5L utility tariff score (r = 0.46) | Yes | Yes |
Ratcliffe, 2017 [36] | DEMQOL-Proxy U | Yes—Proxy completed EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-Proxy U; Yes—EQ-5D-5L and MMSE (r = 0.22 at baseline) | No | NA |
Rombach, 2020 [26] | QoL-AD scores and EQ-5D-5L utilities. In Additional File1 also reported for QOL-AD items and EQ-5D-5L dimensions | Yes—between similar dimensions in QOL | Yes | Yes |
|  |  | Yes—between self-rated QoL-AD and EQ-5D (r = 0.49); Proxy QoL-AD and proxy EQ-5D (0.48 for one dataset and 0.56 for another) |  |  |
Sopina, 2019 [34] | QUALID | Yes—significant correlations between QUALID and EQ-5D-5L (r lies between − 0.3 and − 0.437 at different time points) | Yes | Yes |
Toh, 2020 [21] | Domains of EQ-5D-5L and DCM WIB | Yes—significant correlation between EQ-5D-5L index and the DCM Well/Ill being value (r = 0.433) | No | NA |