Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility

Abstract

Background. Quality of life is often best estimated by standard gamble techniques. However, these techniques usually require time-consuming and expensive interviews or computerdirected questionnaires. Paper Standard Gamble (PSG) is a paper questionnaire that has previously been shown to accurately represent standard gambles elicited by computer. The authors sought to demonstrate its test-retest reliability in comparison to other, paper-based measures of quality of life. Methods. The authors used a longitudinal cohort designwith duplicate assessments of quality of life by PSG, the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and the Mental and Physical Component Summary scores of the SF-12 in stable dermatology outpatients. Baseline measures were performed by mail 1 to 2 weeks before a scheduled dermatology clinic visit. Follow-up measures were performed in the waiting room before being seen by the dermatologist. The authors calculated the coefficient of variation and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for each of the instruments. Results.74 patientswith stable skin conditions participated. The coefficient of variation of PSG (0.47%) was smaller than the other instruments (4.26%–5.22%); PSG’scorrelation washigher (0.97 v. 0.65–0.80). Conclusion. PSG, a 1-page paper questionnaire, is a reliable measure of patient utility suitable for use in postal surveys.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. WeinsteinMC, Siegel JE, GoldMR, KamletMS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine . JAMA. 1996;276(15): 1253–1258 .

2. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Grover SA. Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment . Med Decis Making 1999; 19(2): 149–156 .

3. Bosch JL, HuninkMG. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication . Med Decis Making. 1996;16(3): 217–225 .

4. Bakker C, Rutten-van Molken M, Hidding A, van Doorslaer E, Bennet K, van der Linden S. Patient utilities in ankylosing spondylitis and the association with other outcome measures . J Rheumatol. 1994;21(7): 1298–1304 .

5. Froberg DC, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—ii: Scaling methods . J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42: 459–471 .

6. TorranceGW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life . J Chron Dis. 1987;40(6): 593–600 .

7. Bennett KJ, TorranceGW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spliker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in ClinicalTrials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven ; 1996. p. 253–265.

8. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life . Qual Life Res. 1993;2: 477–487 .

9. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states . Med Care. 1984;22(6): 543–552 .

10.

10. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods . Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3): 315–329 .

11.

11. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders ; 1980.

12.

12. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. U-titer: a utility assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Washington, DC: McGraw Hill ; 1991. p. 701–705.

13.

13. Lenert LA, Hornberger JC. Computer-assisted quality of life assessment for clinical trials . ProcJAMIAAnnuFallSymp. 1996: 992–996 .

14.

14. Ross PL, Littenberg B, Fearn P, Scardino PT, Karakiewicz PI, Kattan MW. Paper standard gamble: a paper-based measure of standard gamble utility for current health . Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19: 135-147 .

15.

15. Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)—a simple practical measure for routine clinical use . Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994;19: 210–216 .

16.

16. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A12-item short-form health survey (SF-12): construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability . Med Care. 1996;23: 220–233 .

17.

17. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 3rd. ed. Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric ; 1998.

18.

18. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press ; 1980.

19.

19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement . Lancet. 1986;1(8476): 307–310 .

20.

20. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley ; 1981.

21.

21. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability . Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33: 613–619 .

22.

22. Landis JR, Koch GG. Themeasurement of observer agreement for categorical data . Biometrics. 1977;33: 159–174 .

23.

23. Nease RF, Whitcup SM, Ellwein LB, Fox G, Littenberg B. Utilitybased estimates of the relative morbidity of visual impairment and angina . Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2000;7: 169–185 .

24.

24. BoyleMH, FurlongW, Feeny D, TorranceGW, Hatcher J. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index—Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian general social survey health questionnaire . Qual Life Res. 1995;4: 249–257 .

25.

25. Nease RF, Kneeland T, O’Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina . JAMA. 1995;273(15): 1185–1190 .

26.

26. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston (MA): New England Medical Center: The Health Institute ; 1993.

27.

27. Bryce C, Angus D, Stahl J, Switala J, Tsevat J, Roberts M. Using health status measures to predict utilities in patients with end-stage liver disease . Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4): 534-534 .

28.

28. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey . J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11): 1115–1128 .

29.

29. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Thiel EC. Do patients’ evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Care. 1993;31(11): 1002–1012 .

30.

30. Sylvia J, JansenM, Stiggelbout A, et al. A shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1): 62–71 .