Using Preference-Based Measures to Assess Quality of Life in Stuttering

Abstract

These results confirm that utility estimates can differentiate between stuttering severity levels and that utility scores for stuttering conform to the known properties of data obtained using these standard measurement techniques. These techniques, therefore, can and should be further investigated as potential contributors to complete measurement protocols for the study and treatment of stuttering.

Effects of Stuttering on Quality of Life in Adults Who Stutter

“…Andrade et al (2008) reported in their study that both mild and severe stuttering had negative effects on QOL (32), while Koedoot et al (2011) reported that moderate to severe stuttering had negative effects on overall QOL (33). Bramlett et al (2006) mentioned stuttering had negative impressions on QOL and the severity of stuttering had negative impact on QOL (34).…”

Assessment of respondent acceptability for preference measures in stuttering

“…Some investigators have addressed this question through indirect feasibility analyses, such as assessing response rates, identifying the numbers of respondents whose answers seem to reflect a misunderstanding of the questions, or identifying other features of obtained data that suggest that respondents were confused by the tasks (Ryan, Watson, & Amaya-Amaya, 2003). In the case of stuttering, Bramlett et al (2006) began this process by comparing the RS, SG, and TTO methods with a group of 76 respondents. Their results showed that all three methods could be completed by all respondents, and that all three methods appeared to result in meaningful data that met some expected patterns.…”

“…Participants for this study included 80 persons selected as recommended by the societal or ex-ante perspective for preference analyses in health care (Gold et al, 1996;Torrance, 1986; see Bramlett et al, 2006;Franic et al, 2012, for discussions and supporting data as related to stuttering, and see Appendices A and B of the present paper). The group included 64 females with no history of stuttering, 11 males with no history of stuttering, and 5 males with a previous or current diagnosis of stuttering, by self-report.…”

“…The first section provided background material regarding stuttering. The second section asked respondents to read and rank six descriptions that are referred to as health states: perfect health, immediate death, their own current health, and three hypothetical health states that represented varying levels of stuttering severity (mild, moderate, and severe) but were not labeled as such (see Bramlett et al, 2006, for details about the health states). The third through sixth sections asked respondents to evaluate the six health states, and to evaluate interventions that would result in various improvements to two of the stuttering health states, using the four preference-measurement methods discussed in Section 1 and in Appendix A: rating scale (RS), time trade-off (TTO), standard gamble (SG), and willingness to pay (WTP) procedures.…”

“…In response to this problem, some researchers have recently begun to explore how to measure the constructs of quality of life and health-related quality of life in stuttering (Bothe, Ingham, & Franic, 2010;Bramlett, Bothe, & Franic, 2006;Craig, Blumgart, & Tran, 2009;Franic & Bothe, 2008;Franic, Bothe, & Bramlett, 2012;Koedoot, Bouwmans, Franken, & Stolk, 2011;Yaruss & Quesal, 2006). Of the two, health-related quality of life (HRQL) is more directly relevant to stuttering; it is a summary outcome variable designed to measure clients' overall perceptions about their lives with respect to domains often described as physical, social, role, and emotional functioning (McHorney & Tarlov, 1995).…”