Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the effects of use of an automated computer protocol to correct a common error in utility elicitations—namely, scoring of a health state with a greater impairment as being more desirable than one with lesser impairment. The authors studied the protocol in a sample of 563 members of the Internet-using public. Results revealed that errors were common (17% of ratings) but were typically successfully repaired (individuals who made only 1 or 2 errors had a 75% chance of repairing them). The values of individuals who repaired errors were similar to those without apparent error. In contrast, individuals who refused to repair errors had lower scores for the best health state in the series and higher ones for the worst health state. Results suggest that the repair procedures were successful and that inclusion of utility scores from individuals who fail to repair illogically ordered ratings may bias estimates of mean utilities.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference based measures of health-related quality of life . Med Care. 2000;38(9 Supple): II138–50 .

2. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public . J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(11): 697–704 .

3. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine . Med Decis Making. 1982;2(4): 449–62 .

4. Mulley AG, Jr. Assessing patients’ utilities. Can the ends justify the means? Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl): S269–81 .

5. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble methods. In: Spliker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philidelphia: Lippincott-Raven ; 1996.

6. Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, Ashton CM, Giesler RB, Byrne MM, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit . Med Care. 2000;38(10): 1040–50 .

7. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Faustman WO, Garber AM. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview . Med Care. 1997;35(9): 915–20 .

8. Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, Byrne MM, Cook K, Geraci JM, et al. Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard . Med Care. 1999;37(6): 580–8 .

9. Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials . Med Care. 1995;33(9): 922–37 .

10.

10. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance . Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4): 473–81 .

11.

11. Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, Sharifi R, Nadler RB, Andrews A, et al. Prostate cancer patients’ utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand . Med Decis Making. 1998;18(3): 278–86 .

12.

12. Baron J, Wu Z, Brennan DJ, Weeks C, Ubel PA. Analog scale, magnitude estimation, and person trade-off as measures of health utility: biases and their correction . J Behav Decis Making. 2001;14(1): 17–34 .

13.

13. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, Sugar C, Mahmoud R, Lenert LA. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups . J Psychiatr Res. 2000;34(3): 201–10 .

14.

14. Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, Sommi R, Mahmoud R. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia . Med Care. 2000;38(10): 1011–21 .

15.

15. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters . Med Decis Making. 2001;21(5): 382–90 .

16.

16. Sugar CA, Sturm R, Lee TT, Sherbourne CD, Olshen RA, Wells KB, et al. Empirically defined health states for depression from the SF-12 . Health Serv Res. 1998;33(4 pt 1): 911–28 .

17.

17. Mahmoud R, Engelhart L, Ollendorf D, Oster G. The Risperidone Outcomes Study of Effectiveness (ROSE): a model for evaluating treatment strategies in typical psychiatric practice . J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(suppl 3): 42–7 .

18.

18. Lenert LA, Sturley A. Acceptability of visual analog scale, time trade-off and standard gamble rating methods in patients and the public. JAMIA (Symposium Supplement). 2001:394–8.

19.

19. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations . Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1): 76–83 .

Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References