Objective

The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18 + and 65 + years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70.

Methods

Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 filled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the differences between the two measures.

Results

707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r > 0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confidence (R² = 0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD = 0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD = 0.15) in most subgroups. The difference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal effect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these effects were larger than the effect of age on both measures.

Conclusion

Validity of both instruments was confirmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the differences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.

中文翻译：

---

比较 ICECAP-A 和 ICECAP-O 仪器在 50-70 岁之间的测量特性：对匈牙利一般人群的代表性样本的横断面研究

客观的

ICECAP-A 和 ICECAP-O 分别被验证为 18 岁以上和 65 岁以上成年人的能力健康测量。我们旨在比较他们在 50-70 岁年龄段的测量特性。

方法

数据来自匈牙利成年人口样本代表的横断面调查。年龄在 50 至 70 岁之间的受访者填写了 ICECAP-A 和 ICECAP-O 问卷。我们评估和比较了两种工具的可行性、一致性、歧视力、收敛性和内容有效性，并探讨了两种措施之间差异的决定因素。

结果

707 名受访者（99.4%）对两份问卷都提供了完整答案（46.3% 为女性，平均年龄 60.1 岁）。这些工具显示出相似的结构和收敛效度和辨别力。仪器项目之间的 Pearson 相关性很强（r  > 0.5）。ICECAP-A 和 ICECAP-O 分数可以相互计算，具有很好的置信度 ( R ² = 0.69 和 0.71）。在大多数亚组中，ICECAP-O 评分（平均 0.87，SD = 0.12）系统地高于 ICECAP-A 评分（0.85，SD = 0.15）。这种差异随着能力和健康状况的恶化以及年龄的增长而增加。回归结果显示，就业和健康状况对 ICECAP-A 的边际效应大于对 ICECAP-O 评分的边际效应，并且这些效应大于年龄对这两个指标的影响。

结论

这两种工具的有效性在 50-70 岁的年龄组中得到证实。鉴于就业和健康状况是除年龄外这两种工具之间差异的重要决定因素，应通过进一步研究调查将 ICECAP-A 和 ICECAP-O 之间的选择与这些因素联系起来的可能性。