Premium
Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population
Author(s) -
AlJanabi Hareth,
Flynn Terry N.,
Peters Tim J.,
Bryan Stirling,
Coast Joanna
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
health economics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.55
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1099-1050
pISSN - 1057-9230
DOI - 10.1002/hec.3100
Subject(s) - measure (data warehouse) , reliability (semiconductor) , capability approach , test (biology) , psychology , consistency (knowledge bases) , applied psychology , internal consistency , clinical psychology , eq 5d , psychometrics , social psychology , medicine , gerontology , computer science , artificial intelligence , data mining , health related quality of life , economics , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , biology , economic growth
Summary Although philosophically attractive, it may be difficult, in practice, to measure individuals' capabilities (what they are able to do in their lives) as opposed to their functionings (what they actually do). To examine whether capability information could be reliably self‐reported, we administered a measure of self‐reported capability (the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults, ICECAP‐A) on two occasions, 2 weeks apart, alongside a self‐reported health measure (the EuroQol Five Dimensional Questionnaire with 3 levels, EQ‐5D‐3L). We found that respondents were able to report capabilities with a moderate level of consistency, although somewhat less reliably than their health status. The more socially orientated nature of some of the capability questions may account for the difference. © 2014 The Authors Health Economics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.