Cited by 50Endometriosis Research and TreatmentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

Evaluation of the American version of the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30)

Jenkinson, Crispin, Kennedy, Stephen, Jones, Georgina·2008·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Objectives Health status instruments, which measure the subjective functioning and well-being of respondents, are increasingly being used in international, multi-centre trials of new treatments. If the results of such trials in different countries are to be pooled, it is vitally important for researchers to know how comparable the instruments are across cultures. In this study, we evaluated the response rate, data quality, score reliability and scaling assumptions of the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) in the USA.Methods Data were obtained from a multi-centre study which recruited 225 patients from 43 clinic sites in the United States of America. It was a randomised, evaluator-blinded, Phase III study. In the evaluation of the EHP-30 reported here, the two groups (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate [DMPA] and Leuprolide Acetate [LA]) are combined, and analyses are based on the data gained at baseline. Questionnaires were self-completed by patients when they visited the clinics.Results Data completeness was very high, with 97.33% of respondents completing all of the items on the EHP-30. Furthermore, there were no more than a maximum of two missing responses for any given item. No floor and ceiling effects were found for any of the dimensions of the questionnaire. Internal consistency reliability was high for all dimensions (alpha ranged from 0.84 to 0.91). The psychometric properties of the instrument, outlined in the development of the UK version, are supported in the American context.Conclusions The data presented here suggest that the EHP-30 is a valid and reliable measure that can be appropriately and meaningfully used in studies that include respondents from the USA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-008-9403-9

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jenkinson, C., Kennedy, S., & Jones, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Jenkinson, Crispin
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2008-10-10
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
1147-1152
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2045705248
Cited by
50
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
endometriosis, health status questionnaires, psychometric validation, cross-cultural comparability, internal consistency, response rate, data quality, floor and ceiling effects, US patients, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Female, Health Status, Humans, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Leuprolide, Medroxyprogesterone Acetate, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review