Cited by 150Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeSurvey Methodology and NonresponseEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data

Maxwell, Aimee, Özmen, Mehmet, Iezzi, Angelo, Richardson, Jeff·2016·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Objectives (i) to demonstrate a method which ameliorates the problem of self-selection in the estimation of population norms from web-based data and (ii) to use the method to calculate population norms for two multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments, the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, and population norms for the sub-scales from which they are constructed.Methods A web-based survey administered the AQoL-8D MAU instrument (which subsumes the AQoL-6D questionnaire), to members of the public along with the AQoL-4D which has extant population norms. Age, gender and the AQoL-4D were used as post-stratification auxiliary variables to construct weights to ameliorate the potential effects of self-selection associated with web-based surveys. The weights were used to estimate unbiased population norms. Standard errors from the weighted samples were calculated using Jackknife estimation.Results For both AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, physical health dimensions decline significantly with age. In contrast, for the majority of the psycho-social dimensions there is a significant U-shaped profile. The net effect is a shallow U-shaped relationship between age and both the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D utilities. This contrasts with the almost monotonic decline in the utilities derived from the AQoL-4D and SF-6D MAU instruments.Conclusions Post-stratification weights were used to ameliorate potential bias in the derivation of norms from web-based data for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D. The methods may be used generally to obtain norms when suitable auxiliary variables are available. The inclusion of an enlarged psycho-social component in the two instruments significantly alters the demographic profile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-016-1337-z

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 150

Authors
Maxwell, A., Özmen, M., Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Richardson, Jeff
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2016-06-25
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
3209-3219
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2462498193
Cited by
150
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5
FWCI
12.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (1006334)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
AQoL-8D, population norms, multi-attribute utility, online surveys, self-selection bias, SF-6D, health-related quality of life measurement
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Young Adult

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