RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire

EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire

Last Updated

Purpose

The purpose of the EQ-5D-5L is to describe and quantify the status of a person’s health. This is achieved by using a standardized measure of descriptive questions and a self-rated health scale. The EQ-5D-5L is used in clinical settings to determine health profiles and values that support clinical assessment, economic evaluation, and health monitoring of populations.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L

Area of Assessment

Activities & Participation
Mental Functions
Movement
Sensation & Pain

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Cost Description

Completion of registration form required. Following the approval of the registration, the instrument may be used free of charge for academic, educational, public health, and other non-commercial purposes. Commercial users are charged a license fee, which is calculated by the EuroQoL office based on the user information provided in the registration form.

CDE Status

Not a CDE--last searched 1/4/2026

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Pain Management
  • Pulmonary Disorders
  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Brain Injury
Mixed Conditions
Stroke
Arthritis and Joint Conditions
Mental Health
Skin Disorders
Non-Patient
Cancer

Key Descriptions

  • Applicable to a wide range of health conditions and treatments, the EQ-5D health questionnaire provides a simple descriptive profile and a single index value for health status.
  • Measures the 5 dimensions of:
    1) mobility
    2) self-care
    3) usual activities
    4) pain/discomfort
    5) anxiety/depression
  • Each dimension is described by 3 possible levels of problems in the EQ-5D-3L:
    1) none
    2) mild to moderate
    3) severe

    For the EQ-5D-5L, each dimension is described by 5 possible levels of problems:
    1) no problem
    2) slight problems
    3) moderate problems
    4) severe problems
    5) unable to/extreme problems
  • The EQ- VAS records the respondent’s overall current health on a vertical visual analogue scale with endpoints being ‘The best health you can imagine’ and ‘The worst health you can imagine’ and provides a measure of the patient’s perception of their overall health
  • Respondent’s answer to different hypothetical choices are translated into a preference-based score, yielding an index score based on a scale from 0.000 (death) to 1.000 (perfect health).
  • The five dimensions measuring health status can be converted to a single utility value (EQ-Index score)
  • Youth versions (EQ-5D-Y-3L or EQ-5D-Y-5L) are recommended for those ages 8-11 years, with interviewer-administered or proxy versions of these instruments available for those ages 4-7 years. Both the youth and adult versions of the EQ-5D may be used for those ages 12-15 years depending on the study design. The adult version (EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L) may be preferred for those age 16 years and older.

Number of Items

6

Equipment Required

  • Paper and pencil

Time to Administer

Less than 5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Sue Saliga, PT, PHSc, CEEAA and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 10/2012

Updated by Rie Yoshida and Heather Anderson of the StrokEDGE II task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2016.

Updated in January 2026 by Madisen Arendt OTS, Amelia Gauss OTS, Anya Mattke OTS, Hannah Pajula OTS, and Masee Selk OTS under the supervision of Jessica Schmidt OTD, MS-OTR/L, Concordia University Wisconsin.

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
Emotion
General Health
Sensory

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  ANPT Outcome Measures Recommendations (EDGE)

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 months post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

StrokEDGE

NR

R

R

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

StrokEDGE

NR

R

R

R

R

TBI EDGE

NR

LS

NR

LS

LS

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

StrokEDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

TBI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

  • Translations available in over 150 languages
  • Recommended by the Core Data Elements Workgroup as a supplemental measure in TBI research (Wilde et al, 2010)
  • In TBI, the instrument has been used in some outcome studies with good success

EuroQOL translations:

Other languages available at https://euroqol.org/register/obtain-eq-5d/available-versions/

These translations, and links to them, are subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use of the Rehab Measures Database. RIC is not responsible for and does not endorse the content, products or services of any third-party website, and does not make any representations regarding its quality, content or accuracy. If you would like to contribute a language translation to the RMD, please contact us at rehabmeasures@ric.org.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Van Agt et al., n=208; mean age=49.3 (18.3); gender=43.3% female; Dutch population)

  • Generalizability Theory was used for test-retest reliability assessment; results interpreted as there are some respondents who value some health states very differently the first or the second time, hence, good test retest reliability

Construct Validity

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Klose et al.; n=104; mean age=41; gender=male n=78)

  • Decreased scores on the EuroQoL Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in patients with posttraumatic hypopituitarism 12mo after injury

 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Bell et al, 2005; n=171; telephone intervention n=85 and standard follow up n=86; mean age = 36 (15)

  • significantly increased EuroQoL scores as an effect of a scheduled telephone intervention in patients with moderate to severe TBI

Floor/Ceiling Effects

General population (British sample): (Brazier et al, 1993; n=1463; age range=16-74; male gender=655)

  • Ceiling effects were larger for the EuroQOL dimensions than for the SF-36 dimensions

Domains

% at ceiling

% at floor

Mobility

97.0

0.1

Self-Care

99.1

0.1

Main Activity

96.5

3.5

Family/leisure

95.2

4.8

Pain/discomfort

64.1

1.9

Anxiety/depression

81.1

29.9

Total Score

54.6

0

Responsiveness

Traumatic Brain Injury (moderate and severe): (Bell et al, 2005; n =171; telephone intervention n=85 and standard follow up n=86; mean age =36 (15)

  • Small treatment effect: 0.10

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Older Adults: (Engel et al., 2025; n = 103; residential aged care residents; Australia; EQ-5D-5L via: self-report n = 90, staff proxy n = 101, family proxy n = 49, median time between self-report and family proxy report = 13 days (16 days)

EQ-5D-5L

  • SEM (calculated) for Resident/Staff (n = 78): 0.07

EQ VAS

  • SEM (calculated) for Resident/Staff (n = 76): 9.61

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Older Adults: (Engel et al., 2025; n = 103; residential aged care residents; Australia; EQ-5D-5L via: self-report n = 90, staff proxy n = 101, family proxy n = 49, median time between self-report and family proxy report = 13 days (16 days)

EQ-5D-5L

  • MDC95 (calculated) for Resident/Staff (n = 78): 0.19

EQ VAS

  • MDC95 (calculated) for Resident/Staff (n = 76): 26.62

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Older adults: (Engel et al., 2025)

EQ-5D-5L

  • Excellent interrater reliability for resident/staff (n = 78): (ICC = 0.96)
  • Excellent interrater reliability for resident/family (n = 34): (ICC = 0.84)
  • Excellent interrater reliability for staff/family (n = 42): (ICC = 0.86)

EQ VAS

  • Excellent interrater reliability for resident/staff (n = 76): (ICC = 0.77)
  • Poor interrater reliability for resident/family (n = 36): (ICC = 0.08)
  • Poor interrater reliability for staff/family (n = 48): (ICC = 0.23)

 

Construct Validity

General Population (British sample): (Brazier et al., n=1453; visited general practitioner in previous 2 weeks, attended outpatient in previous 3 months, inpatient in previous year, chronic physical health problem)

  • The Spearman Rank correlation coefficients of the total score and the UK SF-36 dimensions were found to be in the range 0.48-0.60 (p < 0.01)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

General population (British sample): (Brazier et al, 1993; n=1463; age range=16-74; male gender=655)

  • Ceiling effects were larger for the EuroQOL dimensions than for the SF-36 dimensions

 

Domains

% at ceiling

% at floor

Mobility

97.0

0.1

Self-Care

99.1

0.1

Main Activity

96.5

3.5

Family/leisure

95.2

4.8

Pain/discomfort

64.1

1.9

Anxiety/depression

81.1

29.9

Total Score

54.6

0

 

Older Adults: (Engel et al., 2025)

EQ-5D-5L

  • Self-report (n = 90)
    • Adequate ceiling effect: 7%
    • Excellent floor effect: 0%
  • Staff proxy report (n = 101)
    • Adequate ceiling effect: 3%
    • Excellent floor effect: 0%
  • Family proxy report (n = 49)
    • Excellent ceiling effect: 0%
    • Excellent floor effect: 0% 

EQ VAS

  • Staff-report (n = 90)
    • Adequate ceiling effect: 3%
    • Excellent floor effect: 0%
  • Staff proxy report (n = 101)
    • Adequate ceiling effect: 1%
    • Excellent floor effect: 0%
  • Family proxy report (n = 49)
    • Adequate ceiling effect: 2%
    • Adequate floor effect: 2%

 

 

 

Stroke

back to Populations

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

(Chen et al, 2015; n=65; median time since stroke 19.7 months (range 0.4-94); mean age 52.8 + 11.6 years)

Measures of predictive validity for the 5 item version (EQ-5D-5L):

  • Fair predictive validity (ρ = 0.25; P <0.05) between EQ-Index at the pre-intervention session with the Stoke Impact Scale (SIS)-ADL at the post-intervention session
  • Fair predictive validity (ρ = -0.27; P <0.05) between the mobility dimension of the EQ-5D and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
  • Fair predictive validity between the pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D and the following SIS subscales:
    -strength (ρ = -0.28; P <0.05)
    -emotion (ρ = -0.27; P <0.05)
    -mobility (ρ = -0.33; P <0.05)
    -physical score (ρ = -0.34; P <0.05)
  • Fair predictive validity (ρ = -0.26; P <0.05) between the anxiety/depression dimension of the EQ-5D and the SIS hand function

 

Measures of concurrent validity for EQ-Index, EQ-VAS and individual dimension of EQ-5D

 

  • Fair to good concurrent validity between EQ-Index with FIM, SIS-ADL, SIS mobility and SIS physical scores (ρ = 0.255-0.703, P < 0.05)
  • Low to fair concurrent validity between EQ-VAS with FIM, SIS mobility and SIS physical scores (ρ = 0.249-0.345, P < 0.05)
  • Fair to good concurrent validity between mobility and self care dimensions with physical function criterion measures (SIS strength, SIS mobility and SIS physical scores) and ADL criterion measures (FIM and SIS ADL) (ρ = -0.249 to -0.771, P < 0.05)
  • Fair concurrent validity between usual activity dimension and FIM, SIS-ADL, SIS mobility and SIS physical scores as well as between pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions and SIS emotion (ρ = -0.298 to -0.412, P < 0.05)

Construct Validity

(Golicki et al, 2015; n=112; mean age 70.6 (SD=11.0); patients assessed at 1 week and 4 months post stroke with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Barthel Index (BI) and both the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ-VAS.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between change scores of studied measures:

 

EQ-5D-5L Index

EQ-5D-3L Index

EQ
VAS

Barthel
Index

mRS

EQ-5D-5L Index

1.00

 

 

 

 

EQ-5D-3L Index

0.74

1.00

 

 

 

EQ VAS

0.48

0.41

1.00

 

 

Barthel Index

0.43

0.56

0.27

1.00

 

mRS

-0.31

-0.41

-0.32

-0.42

1.00

Interpretation of extent of correlation: Absent (< 0.20), poor (0.20 - 0.34), moderate (0.35 - 0.50) or strong (> 0.50)

Responsiveness

Chen et al, 2015; n =65; mean age 52.8 + 11.6; median months since stroke onset 19.7 (range 0.4 – 94)

Measures of responsiveness for the 5 item version (EQ-5D-5L):

  • Small effect size (ES) (observed change in scores between pre-intervention and post-intervention divided by the standard deviation of the baseline score) for both the EQ-Index (0.40) and the EQ-VAS (0.30)
  • Moderate Standardized Response Mean (SRM) (the change in scores between pre-intervention measures divided by the SD of the change scores) for the EQ-Index (0.63)
  • Limited SRM for the EQ-VAS = 0.34
  • Small criterion-based responsiveness (determined using the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 as a criterion by calculating the Spearman correlation between the change in EQ-5D and the change in perceived recovery score of the SIS 3.0) for the EQ-Index (0.46)
  • Limited criterion-based responsiveness for the EQ-VAS (0.29).

(Golicki et al, 2015; n=112; mean age 70.6 (SD=11.0); patients assessed at 1 week and 4 months post stroke with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Barthel Index (BI) and both the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ-VAS.

ES calculated as the ratio of the mean change to the Standard Deviation of initial measurement

  • Moderate to large ES (0.63-0.82) for the EQ-5D-3L
  • Moderate ES (0.51-0.71) for the EQ-5D-5L
  • Moderate ES (0.51-0.65) for the EQ VAS

SRM calculated as the ratio of the mean change to the Standard Deviation of that change

  • Moderate to large SRM (0.77-1.06) for the EQ-5D-3L
  • Moderate to large SRM (0.69-0.86) for the EQ-5D-5L
  • Moderate SRM (0.59-0.69) for the EQ VAS

Arthritis and Joint Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018; n = 758 at baseline; n = 644 at 6-month follow-up; mean age (SD) = 69.78 (10.57) years; 61.87% female; hip involvement = 361 (47.6%); knee involvement = 357 (52.4%); EQ-5D-5L w/Spanish population)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 758): 0.11

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018, EQ-5D-5L)

  • MDC95 for entire group (n = 758) = 0.01

 

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018, EQ-5D-5L)

  • Non-surgical Improved MCID (n = 514) = 0.07
  • Non-surgical Worsened MCID (n = 514) = -0.05
  • Surgical Improved MCID (n  = 130) = 0.32

 

Internal Consistency

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.86 at baseline to 0.89 at 6 months

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018)

EQ-5D-5L Measures at Baseline

  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC pain scale (r = -0.688)
  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC function scale (r = -0.782)
  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC stiffness scale (r = -0.581)

EQ-5D-5L Measures at 6 Month Follow-up

  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC pain scale (r = -0.762)
  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC function scale (r = -0.848)
  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC stiffness scale (r = -0.703)

EQ-VAS Measures at Baseline

  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC pain scale (r = -0.487)
  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC function scale (r = -0.507)
  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC stiffness scale (r = -0.368)

EQ-VAS Measures at 6 Month Follow-up

  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC pain scale (r = -0.543)
  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC function scale (r = -0.586)
  • Adequate correlation with WOMAC stiffness scale (r = -0.467)

 

Discriminant validity

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018)

  • Significant ability of EQ-5D-5L scores to discriminate between subgroups defined by WOMAC scores and general health status (p < 0.0001) 

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018) 
EQ-5D-5L

  • Adequate floor effects: 0.27%
  • Adequate ceiling effects: 2.53%

EQ-VAS

  • Adequate floor effects: 1.47%
  • Adequate ceiling effects: 3.21%

 

Responsiveness

Osteoarthritis: (Bilbao et al., 2018; n = 598 for EQ-5D-5L index; n = 594 for EQ-VAS; assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up for surgical and non-surgical patients)

EQ-5D-5L for Non-surgical Patients (n = 213 worsened, n = 195 unchanged, n = 90 improved)

  • Significant negative change in worsened non­surgical patients (mean change = -0.11, SD change = 0.26, p < 0.0001, SES = 0.39, SRM = 0.42)
  • Significant positive change in improved non­surgical patients (mean change = 0.10, SD change = 0.26, p = 0.0003, SES = 0.40, SRM = 0.38)

EQ-5D-5L for Surgical patients (n = 100 improved)

  • Statistically significant, positive change in improved surgical patients (mean change = 0.40, SD change = 0.27, p <0.0001, SES = 1.48, SRM = 1.48)

EQ-VAS for Non-surgical patients (n = 212 for worsened, n = 194 for unchanged, n = 88 for improved)

  • Significant negative change in worsened non­surgical patients (mean change = -5.59, SD change = 23.25, p = 0.0006, SES = 0.27, SRM = 0.24)
  • Significant positive change in improved non­surgical patients (mean change = 8.34, SD change = 18.76, p < 0.0001, SES = 0.48, SRM = 0.44)

EQ-VAS for Surgical patients (n = 100 improved)

  • Statistically significant, positive change for surgically improved patients (mean change = 18.85, SD change = 21.02, p < 0.0001, SES = 0.82, SRM = 0.90)

 

Mental Health

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): (Dams et al., 2021; n = 87; mean age (SD) = 18.1 (2.3) years; 85% female; adolescents and young adults from German outpatient clinics)

EQ-5D-5L

  • SEM (n = 87) = 0.16 (calculated from Dams et al., 2021) 

EQ-VAS

  • SEM (n = 87) = 7.86 (calculated from Dams et al., 2021)

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): (Dams et al., 2021)

EQ-5D-5L

  • MDC95 (n = 87) = 0.43 (calculated from Dams et al., 2021) 

EQ-VAS

  • MDC95 (n = 87) = 21.79 (calculated from Dams et al., 2021)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): (Dams et al., 2021)

EQ-5D-5L

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability from baseline to post-treatment (n = 10): (ICC = 0.73)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability from post-treatment to 3-month follow-up (n = 30): (ICC = 0.91)
  • Poor test-retest reliability from baseline to 3-month follow-up (n = 8): (ICC = 0.65)

EQ-VAS

  • Poor test-retest reliability from baseline to post-treatment (n = 10): (ICC = 0.08)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability from post-treatment to 3-month follow-up (n = 30): (ICC = 0.87)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability from baseline to 3-month follow-up (n = 8): (ICC = 0.71)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity

Adolescents and Young Adults with PTSD: (Dams et al., 2021)

EQ-5D-5L

  • Adequate correlation with CAPS-CA* (r = -0.53)
  • Adequate correlation with UCLA* (r = -0.50)
  • Adequate correlation with YSR* (r = -0.59)
  • Adequate correlation with BSI* (r = 0.54)
  • Adequate correlation with BDI-II* (r = -0.59)

EQ-VAS

  • Adequate correlation with CAPS-CA* (r = -0.35)
  • Poor correlation with UCLA* (r = -0.21)
  • Adequate correlation with YSR* (r = -0.40)
  • Adequate correlation with BSI* (r = 0.36)
  • Poor correlation with BDI-II* (r = -0.28)

*CAPS-CA: Clinical Administered PTSD Scale for Children and Adolescents; UCLA: University of California Los Angeles PTSD Reaction Index; YSR: Youth Self Report; BSL: Borderline Symptoms List-23; BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory II

 

Responsiveness

Adolescents and Young Adults with PTSD: (Dams et al., 2021)

Improvement of health status measured by the EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS anchored by CAPS-CA total score (≤ -10.25 points)

EQ-5D-5L

  • Moderate Change from baseline to posttreatment (significant mean change (SD) = 0.09 (0.11), p ≤ 0.05; ES = 0.40; SRM = 0.78)
  • Small Change from post-treatment to 3-month follow-up (Significant mean change (SD) = 0.04 (0.09), p ≤ 0.05; ES = 0.14; SRM = 0.44)
  • Small Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up (mean change (SD) = -0.02 (0.19), ES = -0.008, SRM=-0.09)

EQ-VAS

  • Moderate Change from baseline to posttreatment (mean change (SD) = 8.9 (28.1), ES = 0.40, SRM = 0.32)
  • Small Change from post-treatment to 3-month follow-up (mean change (SD) = 0.8 (11.6), ES = 0.04, SRM = 0.07)
  • Small Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up (mean change (SD) = -7.0 (18.6), ES = -0.32, SRM = -0.38)

 

Non-Patient

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Caregivers: (Calculated from Li et al., 2019; n = 298; mean age (SD) = 41.08 (10.80) years; 80.2% spouse or parent of leukemia patient; Chinese population)

  • SEM for EQ-5D-5L (n = 298): 0.025
  • SEM for EQ-VAS (n = 298): 5.927

Caregivers: (Calculated from Xu et al., 2023; Caregivers of children ages 8-17, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) Caregivers, n = 633; Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Caregivers, n = 222)

  • SEM for EQ-5D-5L for DMD Caregivers (n = 633): 0.148
  • SEM for EQ-VAS for DMD Caregivers (n = 633): 9.960
  • SEM for EQ-5D-5L for SMA Caregivers (n = 222): 0.161
  • SEM for EQ-VAS for SMA Caregivers (n = 222): 13.302

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Caregivers: (Calculated from Li et al., 2019)

  • MDC for EQ-5D-5L (n = 298): 0.07
  • MDC for EQ-VAS (n = 298): 16.43

Caregivers: (Xu et al., 2023)

  • MDC for EQ-5D-5L for DMD Caregivers (n = 633): 0.41
  • MDC for EQ-VAS for DMD Caregivers (n = 633): 27.61
  • MDC for EQ-5D-5L for SMA Caregivers (n = 222): 0.45
  • MDC for EQ-VAS for SMA Caregivers (n = 222): 36.87

 

Normative Data

Healthy Adults: (Jiang et al., 2020; n = 1134; age ≥ 18 years; Mean Age = 46.9 (18.1); Overall EQ-5D-5L Utility Face-to-face index sample)

Face to Face Normative Values for EQ-5D-5L Utility

Age

n (%)

Mean (SD)

Median

<25

107 (9.4)

0.919 (0.127)

0.943

25-34

251(22.1)

0.911 (0.111)

0.940

35-44

182 (16.0)

0.841 (0.210)

0.932

45-54

212 (18.7)

0.816 (0.249)

0.904

55-64

159 (14.0)

0.815 (0.243)

0.940

65-74

127 (11.2)

0.824 (0.217)

0.904

75+

96 (8.5)

0.811 (0.218)

0.858

Total

1134 (100)

0.851 (0.205)

0.940

 

Healthy Adults: (Jiang et al., 2020; n = 1134; age ≥ 18 years; Mean Age = 46.9 (18.1); Overall VAS sample)

Face to Face Normative Values for VAS

Age

n

Mean (SD)

Median

<25

107 (9.4)

84.9 (11.8)

90.0

25-34

251(22.1)

84.4 (10.4)

85.0

35-44

182 (16.0)

78.1 (15.4)

80.0

45-54

212 (18.7)

75.9 (18.6)

80.0

55-64

159 (14.0)

78.8 (18.8)

80.0

65-74

127 (11.2)

80.7 (15.1)

85.0

75+

96 (8.5)

81.1 (15.6)

85.0

Total

1134 (100)

80.4 (15.6)

85.0

 

Healthy Adults: (Jiang et al., 2020; EQ-5D-5L face-to face sample)

Most Frequent Self-Reported EQ-5D-5L Health States in Face to Face Sample (Frequencies ≥ 0.5%)

EQ-5D-5L Health State

 

n

 

%

11111

354

31.2

11121

138

12

11112

95

2

11122

64

8.4

21121

37

5.6

21111

24

3.3

11123

19

2.1

11113

18

1.7

21222

17

1.6

11221

14

1.5

11131

12

1.2

21221

12

1.1

21231

12

1.1

11211

11

1.1

21122

10

1

11133

8

0.9

11213

7

0.7

11222

7

0.6

21211

7

0.6

21233

7

0.6

11132

6

0.6

11223

6

0.5

11232

6

0.5

21132

6

0.5

21223

6

0.5

31121

6

0.5

31131

6

0.5

 

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Caregivers: (Li et al., 2019)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for EQ-5D-5L Index: (ICC = 0.987)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability for EQ-VAS: (ICC = 0.865)

 

Internal Consistency

Caregivers: (Xu et al., 2023)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha for DMD caregivers (n = 633) = 0.84
  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha for SMA caregivers (n = 222) = 0.73

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity

Caregivers: (Li et al., 2019; n = 298)

EQ-5D-5L Index

  • Excellent correlation between the physical domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.614)
  • Adequate correlation between the psychological domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.532)
  • Poor correlation between the social domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.249)
  • Poor correlation between the environment domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.186)

EQ-VAS

  • Adequate correlation between the physical domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-VAS (r = 0.529)
  • Adequate correlation between the psychological domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-VAS (r = 0.423)
  • Adequate correlation between the social domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-VAS (r = 0.331)
  • Poor correlation between the environment domain of WHOQOL-BREF and EQ-VAS (r = 0.300)

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Caregivers: (Xu et al., 2023)

  • Poor floor effect of 32.4% found for the mobility domain of DMD caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 13.4% found for the mobility domain of DMD caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 29.8% found for the self-care domain of DMD caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 17.3% found for the self-care domain of DMD caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 24.5% found for the usual activity domain of DMD caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 10% found for the usual activity domain of DMD caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 24.7% found for the pain/discomfort domain of DMD caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 3.9% found for the pain/discomfort domain of DMD caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 25.8% found for the anxiety/depression domain of DMD caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 3.7% found for the anxiety/depression domain of DMD caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 74 % found for the mobility domain of SMA caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 3.3% found for the mobility domain of SMA caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 65.7% found for the self-care domain of SMA caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 10.4% found for the self-care domain of SMA caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 54.1% found for the usual activity domain of SMA caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 2.7% found for the usual activity domain of SMA caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 30.5% found for the pain/discomfort domain of SMA caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 4.4% found for the pain/discomfort domain of SMA caregivers
  • Poor floor effect of 22.5% found for the anxiety/depression domain of SMA caregivers
  • Adequate ceiling effect of 6.8% found for the anxiety/depression domain of SMA caregivers

 

Skin Disorders

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Atopic Dermatitis: (Koszorú et al., 2022; n = 218; mean age = 31.3 (11.7) years; age range = 18-73 years; 57.8% female; Disease duration = 19 (12.91) years)

  • SEM for EQ-5D-5L (n = 218) = 0.095
  • SEM for EQ-VAS (n = 217) = 8.817

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Atopic Dermatitis: (Koszorú et al., 2022)

  • MDC for EQ-5D-5L (n = 218): 0.26
  • MDC for EQ-VAS (n = 217): 24.44

 

Normative Data

Atopic Dermatitis: (Koszorú et. al., 2022)

  • Mean EQ-5D-5L index: 0.82 (0.22)
  • Median (Q1-Q3) EQ-5D-5L index: 0.89 (0.78-0.97)
  • 1st to 3rd quartile of EQ-5D-5L index: 0.78-0.97
  • Mean EQ-VAS index: 69.15 (20.50)
  • Median (Q1-Q3) of EQ-VAS index: 75.00 (57.00-85.00)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Chronic skin disease patients: (Szabó et al., 2024; n = 120; median age = 51 years, age range = 18-86 years; representative sample of general adult population in Hungary of age ≥ 18 years w/self-reported, physician-diagnosed dermatological conditions; Hungarian translation of EQ-5D-5L)

  • Excellent concurrent validity between the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) (ICC = 0.770)
  • Adequate concurrent validity between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Preference (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.381)
  • Adequate concurrent validity between the PROPr and SF-6D (ICC = 0.445)
  • Poor concurrent validity between the Time Trade-Off (TTO) and EQ-5D-5L (ICC = 0.242)
  • Poor concurrent validity between the TTO and SF-6D (ICC = 0.201)
  • Poor concurrent validity between the TTO and PROPr (ICC = 0.058)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Atopic Dermatitis: (Koszorú et al., 2022)

  • Excellent convergent validity between the EQ-5D-5L index scores and the EQ VAS (r = 0.665)
  • Excellent convergent validity between EQ-5D-5L index scores and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (r = -0.731)
  • Excellent convergent validity between EQ-5D-5L index scores and Skindex-16 Total (r = -0.684)
  • Adequate convergent validity between EQ-5D-5L index scores and disease severity measured by:
  • Investigator Global Assessment (IGA): (r = -0.349)
  • objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (oSCORAD): (r = -0.359)
  • Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) (r = -0.308)
  • Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Severity Visual Analogue Scale (PtGA VAS) (r = -0.583)

 

Discriminant Validity:

Chronic skin disease patients: (Szabó et al., 2024; n = 120)

  • Significant ability of EQ-5D-5L to discriminate between known groups as defined by general health (SF-36 First Question and PROMIS Global01) and physical health (PROMIS Global03) (p < 0.001)

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Atopic Dermatitis: (Koszorú et. al., 2022)

  • Poor ceiling effect = 22.5%

Chronic skin disease patients: (Szabó et al., 2024; n = 120)

  • Poor ceiling effect = 27.5%
  • Excellent floor effect = 0%

 

Cancer

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Breast cancer: (Calculated from Pangestu et al., 2025; n = 300; mean age (SD) = 51.26 (10.29); mean time since diagnosis (SD) = 2.45 (3.19) years; female patients with breast cancer in Indonesia)

  • SEM for EQ-5D-5L (n = 32): 0.042
  • SEM for EQ-VAS (n = 32): 10.94

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Breast cancer: (Calculated from Pangestu et al., 2025)

  • MDC for EQ-5D-5L (n = 32):0.12
  • MDC for EQ-VAS (n = 32): 30.3

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Breast Cancer Patients: (Pangestu et al., 2025)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability for EQ-5D-5L: (ICC = 0.89)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability for EQ-VAS: (ICC = 0.71)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Breast Cancer Patients: (Pangestu et al., 2025)

  • Excellent convergent validity between EQ-HWB-S index and EQ-5D-5L index (r = 0.73)
  • Excellent convergent validity between EQ-HWB LSS and EQ-5D-5L LSS (r = 0.65)

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Breast Cancer Patients: (Pangestu et al., 2025)

  •  Poor celling effects for EQ-5D-5L dimensions: Mobility (79%), self-care (90%), usual activities (80%), pain/discomfort (45%), anxiety/depression (70%)
  • Poor ceiling effect for Health State Profile on EQ-5D-5L (35%)
  • Excellent floor effects for EQ-5D-5L dimensions: Mobility (0%) and anxiety/depression (0%)
  • Adequate floor effects for EQ-5D-5L dimensions: Self-care (1%) usual activities (2%), and pain discomfort (1%)
  • Excellent floor effect for Health State Profile on EQ-5D-5L (0%)

 

Responsiveness

Breast Cancer Patients: (Pangestu et al., 2025)

  • Moderate responsiveness of Improved Health subgroups of patients on the EQ-VAS (SRM = 0.62)
  • Large responsiveness of Worsened Health subgroups of patients on the EQ-VAS (SRM = -1.10)
  • Low responsiveness of Improved health subgroups of patients on the EQ-5D-5L (SRM = 0.16) and EQ-5D-5L LSS (SRM = 0.22)

 

Bibliography

Bell, K. R., Temkin, N. R., et al. (2005). "The effect of a scheduled telephone intervention on outcome after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized trial." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86(5): 851-856. Find it on PubMed

Bilbao, A., Garcia-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., Garcia, I. Ariza-Cardiel, G., Trujillo-Martin, E., Forjaz, M. J., & Martin-Fernández, J. (2018). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x 

Brazier, J., Jones, N., et al. (1993). "Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire." Qual Life Res 2(3): 169-180. Find it on PubMed

Chen, P., Keh-Chung L., et al. (2015). “Validity, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation.” Qual Life Res. DOI 10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z. Find it on PubMed

Dams, J., Rimane, E., Steil, R., Renneberg, B., Rosner, R., & König, H.-H. (2020). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L in assessing and valuing health status in adolescents and young adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09814-6

Engel, L., Belay, Y. B., Peasgood, T., Devlin, N., Viney, R., Dow, B., Gilbert, A., Batchelor, F., & Mulhern, B. (2025). Validity of the EQ-5D-5L for routine assessment in residential aged care: Results from a feasibility study. Value in Health, 28(9), 1361–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.05.012

Golicki D., Niewada M., et al. (2015). “Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients.” Qual Live Res 24:1555-1563. Find it on PubMed

Jiang, R., Janssen, M. F. B., & Pickard, A. S. (2020). US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Quality of Life Research, 30, 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02650-y

Klose, M., Watt, T., et al. (2007). "Posttraumatic hypopituitarism is associated with an unfavorable body composition and lipid profile, and decreased quality of life 12 months after injury." J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92(10): 3861-3868. Find it on PubMed

Koszorú, K., Hajdu, K., Brodszky, V., Bat0, A., Gergely, L., A Kovács, Zsuzsanna Beretzky, Mikl0s Sárdy, Szegedi, A., & Fanni Rencz. (2022). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis. European Journal of Health Economics, 24(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01460-y 

Li, L., Liu, C., Cai, X., Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Zheng, E., Li, Y., Xu, J., & Zhou, J. (2019). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5 L in family caregivers of leukemia patients. BMC cancer, 19(1), 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5721-2 

Pangestu, S., Purba, F. D., Setyowibowo, H., Azhar, Y., Mukuria, C., & Rencz, F. (2025). The psychometric properties of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S in patients with breast cancer: a comparative analysis with EQ-5D-5L, FACT-8D and SWEMWBS. Value in Health, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.003 

Szabo, Á., Brodszky, V., & Rencz, F. (2025). Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases. The European Journal of Health Economics, 26, 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01728-5

van Agt, H. M., Essink-Bot, M. L., et al. (1994). "Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire." Soc Sci Med 39(11): 1537-1544. Find it on PubMed

Wilde, E. A., Whiteneck, G. G., et al. (2010). "Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(11): 1650-1660 e1617. Find it on PubMed

Xu, R.H., Dai, Y., Ng, S. S. M., Tsang, H. W. H., Zhang, S., & Dong, D. (2024). Assessing validity of the EQ-5D-5L proxy in children and adolescents with Duchenne muscular dystrophy or spinal muscular atrophy. The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care, 25(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01574-x

 

 

 

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Mar 25, 2026

Geriatric Depression Scale

read more

updated Feb 10, 2026

Section GG: Functional Abi...

read more

updated Jan 27, 2026

Care and Needs Scale

read more