Do Category Rating Scales Produce Biased Preference Weights for a Health Index?

Kaplan, Robert M.; Ernst, John

doi:10.1097/00005650-198302000-00007

Cited by 55 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analog scaling methods are prone to sequencing effects. The specific values obtained with RSs can influence the appearance of the scale (eg, an open-ended question versus a horizontal scale rating versus a vertical scale), the range of health states considered during the performance of preference ratings, 39 and the prior assessments performed with other methods. 40 Utilities for the SG and TTO can be influenced by a number of procedural factors, such as the frame of the gamble (with a focus on positive or negative outcomes) 41 and the bottom anchor in the gamble.…”

Section: Protocol Implementation and Construct-irrelevant Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and Interpretation of Preference-Based Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life

Lenert¹,

Kaplan²

2000

Medical Care

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilities are numeric measurements that reflect an individual's beliefs about the desirableness of a health condition, willingness to take risks to gain health benefits, and preferences for time. This report discusses the approaches to assess and compare the validity of methods used to assign utilities for cost-utility analysis. Threats to validity include construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance. Construct underrepresentation occurs when a stimulus presented to a judge fails to fully represent the depth and complexity of information required in actual judgments. Construct-irrelevant variation occurs when factors irrelevant to preferences influence measurements of utilities. Among several factors that cause construct-irrelevant variation are cognitive abilities, numeracy skills, emotions and prejudices, and the elicitation procedure. Commonly used elicitation methods (visualanalog scales, time tradeoff, and standard gamble) capture different facets of utilities (desirableness of states, time preferences, and risk attitude) to different degrees. The validity of an elicitation protocol depends (1) on the degree to which its scaling method captures the relevant facets of utility and (2) on the degree to which measurements are influenced by construct-irrelevant variation. Discrete-state health index models provide an alternative to direct elicitation of utilities and work by attaching fixed preference weights to observable health states. The creation of discrete-state models with current technologies requires the adoption of strong assumptions about the scaling properties of utilities. Future research must refine methods of eliciting utilities and identify sources of construct-irrelevant variability that reduce the validity of utility assessments. Because of the impact of variation in techniques on measurements, we do not recommend the combination of utilities elicited with different protocols in cost-utility analysis and do not recommend the display of cost-utility ratios from different studies in comparison or "league" tables. II-138degree of abnormality of an impairment of health for a group or an individual, but they offer little information on the significance of the impairment.Utility-based measures were developed to address the issue of the significance of health impairments in a systematic way. These measures share some similarities with psychometric measures of health. For example, both measures often examine the same dimensions of health. However, although psychometric measures report a series of scores and characterize respondents on each independent dimension of the profile, utility measures use human judgment to combine and scale health effects over several different dimensions. The scaling of utility measures is always made in terms of some absolute reference point (often, "perfect health" and death), as opposed to the population reference point used in many healthstatus measures. Validity of Preference-Based MeasuresThis report explores the issue of the validity of preference m...

show abstract

Section: Protocol Implementation and Construct-irrelevant Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and Interpretation of Preference-Based Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life

Lenert¹,

Kaplan²

2000

Medical Care

Self Cite

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This difference, though substantial, was evoked by a deliberately devised research setting based on strongly deviating sets of health states. Kaplan & Ernst also found some evidence of the context effect in the VAS in the early years of health-state measurement [31], as did Robinson et al [32]. The latter research group, however, was able to largely correct this distortion by applying Parducci's range-frequency theory [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of whether valuations measured by VAS are biased and not interval-scaled is highly contentious and is discussed extensively in the literature [37][38][39][40][41]. To overcome these shortcomings of VAS measurements, two measures were applied.…”

Section: Elicitation Of Valuationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A preference‐based index for the SF‐12

Stratmann-Schoene

Kuehn

Leidl³

2006

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The initial results show that this approach might allow the direct assignment of a preference-based valuation to the SF-12. The quality of the psychometric features of the multi-attribute value function is encouraging. Future studies should test this concept more extensively, especially by determining parameters for a representative sample of the general population and by comparing performance with other approaches to value the SF-12.

show abstract

Do Category Rating Scales Produce Biased Preference Weights for a Health Index?

Cited by 55 publications

References 24 publications

Validity and Interpretation of Preference-Based Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life

Validity and Interpretation of Preference-Based Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life

Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales

A preference‐based index for the SF‐12

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About