The reliability, validity, and preliminary responsiveness of the Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire (EAPIQ)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Linda Abetz¹  Rob Arbuckle¹  Jeff Lee²  Caroline Burk⁶  John Walt²  Patricia Buchholz⁴  William Berger⁵  Michael Alexander³ 

[1] Mapi Values Ltd, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 5JB, UK;Allergan, Inc., 2525 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92612, USA;Niagara Clinical Research, 5673 North Street, Niagara Falls, Ont L2G1J4, Canada;Allergan, Inc., Ettlingen GmbH, Pforzheimer Str. 160, Ettlingen 76275, Germany;Southern California Research, 27800 Medical Center Road, Suite 240, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, USA;CT Burk, Inc., 1337 Cerritos Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, USA

关键词: patient reported outcomes;    EAPIQ;    psychometric validation;    ocular allergy;    Patient functioning;   

Others  :  1219256
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-3-67

 received in 2005-08-18, accepted in 2005-10-31,  发布年份 2005

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire (EAPIQ) was developed based on a pilot study conducted in the US and focus groups with eye allergy sufferers in Europe. The purpose of this study was to present the results of the psychometric validation of the EAPIQ.

Methods

One hundred forty six patients from two allergy clinics completed the EAPIQ twice over a two-week period during the fall and winter allergy seasons, along with concurrent measures of health status, work productivity, and utility. Construct validity, reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), concurrent, known-group, and clinical validities, and responsiveness of the EAPIQ were assessed. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing EAPIQ scale scores between patients grouped according to their self-rating of ocular allergy severity (no symptoms, very mild, mild, moderate, severe, very severe). Clinical validity was assessed by assessing differences in EAPIQ scores between groups of patients rated by their clinician as non-symptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe.

Results and Discussion

Results from the validation study suggested the deletion of 14 of 43 items (including embedded questions) that required patients to complete the percentage of time they were troubled by something (daily activity limitations/emotional troubles). These items yielded a significant amount of missing or inconsistent data (50%). The resulting factor analysis suggested four domains: symptoms, daily life impact, psychosocial impact, and treatment satisfaction. When included as separate scales, the symptom-bother and symptom-frequency scales were highly correlated (> 0.9). As a consequence, and due to superior discriminative validity, the symptom bother and frequency items were summed. All items met the tests for item convergent validity (item-scale correlation = 0.4). The success rate for item discriminant validity testing was 97% (item-scale correlation greater with own scale than with any other). The criterion for internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficient ≥ 0.70) was met for all EAPIQ scales (range 0.89–0.93), as was the criterion for test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC] ≥ 0.70). Largely moderate correlations between the scales of the EAPIQ and the mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (miniRQLQ) and low correlations with the Health Utilities Index 2/3 (HUI2/3) were indicative of satisfactory concurrent validity. The EAPIQ symptoms, Daily Life Impact, and Psychosocial Impact scales were able to distinguish between patients differing in eye allergy symptom severity, as rated by patients and clinicians, providing evidence of satisfactory known-group and clinical validities, respectively. Preliminary analyses indicated the EAPIQ Symptoms, Daily Life Impact, and Psychosocial Impact scales to be responsive to changes in eye allergies.

Conclusion

Following item reduction, construct validity, reliability, concurrent validity, known-group validity, and preliminary responsiveness were satisfactory for the EAPIQ in this population of ocular allergy patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2005 Alexander et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bhargava A, Jackson WB, El-Defrawy SR: Ocular allergy disease. Drugs Today 1998, 34:957-971.
• [2]Wood B: New treatments to relieve ocular allergies. Rev Optom 1999, 136:124-135.
• [3]Knight A: The role of levocabastine in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Br J Clin Pract 1994, 48:139-143.
• [4]Walt J, Wojcik A, Buchholz P: Initial Development and Validation of the Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire (EAPIQ). In Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) October 30 – November 2. Orlando Florida, USA; 2002.
• [5]Buchholz P, Walt J, Lorenz DG, Burk C, Lee J: Patient Impact of Allergic Conjunctivitis as measured by the Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire (EAPIQ). In Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Opthalmology, (ARVO); May 4–9, 2003. Ft. Lauderdale, FL;
• [6]Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Ferrie PJ, Roberts JN: Development and validation of the mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. Clin Exp Allergy 2000, 30:132-140.
• [7]Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ: Health Utilities Index. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Second edition. Edited by Spilker B. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press; 1996:239-252.
• [8]Ware JEJ, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston; USA: New England Medical Center; 1993.
• [9]Hays RD, Hayashi T: Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user's guide for Multitait Analysis Program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods 1990, 22:167-175.
• [10]Campbell DT, Fiske JL: Convergent and discriminant validation by the Multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959, 56:81-105.
• [11]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [12]Nunnaly JC, Bernstein IR: Psychometric. In Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 7 The Assessment of Reliability; 1994:248-292.
• [13]Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fulleton S, Aaronson N: Patient-Reported outcomes: the example of health related quality of life – a European guidance document for the improved integration of health related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J 2002, 36:209-238.
• [14]Hays R, Anderson R, Reviki DA: Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. Edited by Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
• [15]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27:S178-S189.
• [16]Ware JE, Hams WJ, Gandek B, Rogers B, Reese PR: MAP-R for Windows: multi-trait/multi-item analysis porgram-revised. In Users guide. Boston: health Assessment Lab; 1997.