Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability

Elena Andresen, Victoria J. Vahle, Donald Lollar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

112 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Research and surveillance activities sometimes require that proxy respondents provide key exposure or outcome information, especially for studies of people with disability (PWD). In this study, we compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) responses of index PWD to proxies. Methods: Subjects were selected from nursing home, other assisted living residences, and from several clinic samples of PWD. Each index identified one or more proxy respondents. Computer-assisted interviews used a random order of measures. Proxy reliability was measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) and κ statistics. HRQoL measures tested included the surveillance questions of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs), medical outcomes study short-form 36 and 12 (SF-36 and SF-12). Results: A total of 131 index-proxy sets were completed. In general, agreement and reliability of proxy responses to the PWD tended to be best for relatives, with friends lower, and health care proxies lowest. For example, the ICC for the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 was 0.68 for relatives, 0.51 for friends, and 0.40 for healthcare proxies. There was a tendency for proxies to overestimate impairment and underestimate HRQoL. This pattern was reversed for measures of pain, which proxies consistently underestimated. The pattern among instruments, proxy types, and HRQoL domains was complex, and individual measures vary from these general results. Conclusions: We suggest caution when using proxy respondents for HRQoL, especially those measuring more subjective domains.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)609-619
Number of pages11
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume10
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Proxy
Disabled Persons
Quality of Life
Activities of Daily Living
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Delivery of Health Care
Nursing Homes
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Interviews

Keywords

  • Disabled persons
  • Health status indicators
  • Proxy
  • Quality of life
  • Questionnaires
  • Reproducibility of results

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Proxy reliability : Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. / Andresen, Elena; Vahle, Victoria J.; Lollar, Donald.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001, p. 609-619.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c7f1fe8a315e412391f38580c0f6cad0,
title = "Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability",
abstract = "Objectives: Research and surveillance activities sometimes require that proxy respondents provide key exposure or outcome information, especially for studies of people with disability (PWD). In this study, we compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) responses of index PWD to proxies. Methods: Subjects were selected from nursing home, other assisted living residences, and from several clinic samples of PWD. Each index identified one or more proxy respondents. Computer-assisted interviews used a random order of measures. Proxy reliability was measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) and κ statistics. HRQoL measures tested included the surveillance questions of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs), medical outcomes study short-form 36 and 12 (SF-36 and SF-12). Results: A total of 131 index-proxy sets were completed. In general, agreement and reliability of proxy responses to the PWD tended to be best for relatives, with friends lower, and health care proxies lowest. For example, the ICC for the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 was 0.68 for relatives, 0.51 for friends, and 0.40 for healthcare proxies. There was a tendency for proxies to overestimate impairment and underestimate HRQoL. This pattern was reversed for measures of pain, which proxies consistently underestimated. The pattern among instruments, proxy types, and HRQoL domains was complex, and individual measures vary from these general results. Conclusions: We suggest caution when using proxy respondents for HRQoL, especially those measuring more subjective domains.",
keywords = "Disabled persons, Health status indicators, Proxy, Quality of life, Questionnaires, Reproducibility of results",
author = "Elena Andresen and Vahle, {Victoria J.} and Donald Lollar",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1023/A:1013187903591",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "609--619",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proxy reliability

T2 - Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability

AU - Andresen, Elena

AU - Vahle, Victoria J.

AU - Lollar, Donald

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Objectives: Research and surveillance activities sometimes require that proxy respondents provide key exposure or outcome information, especially for studies of people with disability (PWD). In this study, we compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) responses of index PWD to proxies. Methods: Subjects were selected from nursing home, other assisted living residences, and from several clinic samples of PWD. Each index identified one or more proxy respondents. Computer-assisted interviews used a random order of measures. Proxy reliability was measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) and κ statistics. HRQoL measures tested included the surveillance questions of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs), medical outcomes study short-form 36 and 12 (SF-36 and SF-12). Results: A total of 131 index-proxy sets were completed. In general, agreement and reliability of proxy responses to the PWD tended to be best for relatives, with friends lower, and health care proxies lowest. For example, the ICC for the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 was 0.68 for relatives, 0.51 for friends, and 0.40 for healthcare proxies. There was a tendency for proxies to overestimate impairment and underestimate HRQoL. This pattern was reversed for measures of pain, which proxies consistently underestimated. The pattern among instruments, proxy types, and HRQoL domains was complex, and individual measures vary from these general results. Conclusions: We suggest caution when using proxy respondents for HRQoL, especially those measuring more subjective domains.

AB - Objectives: Research and surveillance activities sometimes require that proxy respondents provide key exposure or outcome information, especially for studies of people with disability (PWD). In this study, we compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) responses of index PWD to proxies. Methods: Subjects were selected from nursing home, other assisted living residences, and from several clinic samples of PWD. Each index identified one or more proxy respondents. Computer-assisted interviews used a random order of measures. Proxy reliability was measured by intraclass correlation (ICC) and κ statistics. HRQoL measures tested included the surveillance questions of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs), medical outcomes study short-form 36 and 12 (SF-36 and SF-12). Results: A total of 131 index-proxy sets were completed. In general, agreement and reliability of proxy responses to the PWD tended to be best for relatives, with friends lower, and health care proxies lowest. For example, the ICC for the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 was 0.68 for relatives, 0.51 for friends, and 0.40 for healthcare proxies. There was a tendency for proxies to overestimate impairment and underestimate HRQoL. This pattern was reversed for measures of pain, which proxies consistently underestimated. The pattern among instruments, proxy types, and HRQoL domains was complex, and individual measures vary from these general results. Conclusions: We suggest caution when using proxy respondents for HRQoL, especially those measuring more subjective domains.

KW - Disabled persons

KW - Health status indicators

KW - Proxy

KW - Quality of life

KW - Questionnaires

KW - Reproducibility of results

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035681276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035681276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1013187903591

DO - 10.1023/A:1013187903591

M3 - Article

C2 - 11822794

AN - SCOPUS:0035681276

VL - 10

SP - 609

EP - 619

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 7

ER -