Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index in outpatients with epilepsy

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Liv Marit Valen Schougaard
  • Annette de Thurah
  • Per Bech
  • Niels Henrik Hjollund
  • David Høyrup Christiansen
View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: The generic questionnaire WHO-5 Well-being Index (WHO-5), which measures the construct of mental well-being has been widely used in several populations across countries. The questionnaire has demonstrated sufficient psychometric properties; however, the test- retest reliability of the WHO-5 scale has yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index for outpatients with epilepsy. A further aim was to evaluate whether the method of administration (web, paper, or a mixture of the two modalities) influenced the results.

METHODS: Epilepsy outpatients aged ≥15 years from three outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region were included from August 2016 to April 2017. The participants were randomly divided into four test-retest groups: web-web, paper-paper, web-paper, and paper-web. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and measurement error by calculating minimal detectable change (MDC) on the basis of the standard error of the measurement.

RESULTS: A total of 554 patients completed the questionnaire at two time points. The median duration between test-retest was 22 days. The pooled test-retest reliability estimate was ICC 0.81 (95% CI 0.78; 0.84). The estimated MDC was 23.60 points (95% CI 22.27; 25.10). These estimates showed little variation across administration methods.

CONCLUSIONS: WHO-5 showed acceptable test-retest reliability in a Danish epilepsy outpatient population across different method of administration; however, the relatively large measurement error should be taken into account when evaluating changes in WHO-5 scores over time. Further research should be done to explore these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Article number175
JournalHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes
Volume16
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)1-6
Number of pages6
ISSN1477-7525
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Sep 2018

ID: 55365166