A New Model for Category-scaling Data with an Application to the Development of Health-status Measures

Abstract

Category rating is used to assess patient, family-member, provider, and societal preferences for health outcomes. Often, it is of interest to compare ratings obtained from different groups. Standard methods for making comparisons, such as regressions, correlations, and multiple t-tests, do not account for the dependency among ratings. The authors propose a new model for category ratings that does consider their relative dependency. This model provides a profile of ratings for a single group and facilitates comparisons across groups. It was applied to category ratings for four levels of Bending and Lifting function as defined by the recently developed Functional Capacity Index (FCI). Differences in ratings were observed across groups with different personal experiences of functional limitations and across groups with different degrees of clinical knowledge. These differences were not observed when standard methods were used. Thus, ignoring the relative nature of category ratings can lead to different conclusions about group preferences for health outcomes. When the ratings are being used to scale a health-status measure, this discrepancy has implications for the application of the measure in resource allocation. Key words: category scaling; health status measures. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:170-179)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

Carter WB , Bobbit RA , Bergner M., et al. Validation for an interval scaling: the sickness impact profile. Health Serv Res. 1976;(Winter): 516-28.

Patrick DL , Sittampalam Y. , Somerville SM, et al. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health. 1985; 75:1402-7.

Bergner M. , Bobbit RA , Kressel, et al. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv. 1976;6:393-415.

Patrick DL , Bush JW , Chen MM Toward an operational definition of health. J Health Soc Behav . 1973;14:6-23.

Balaban DJ , Sagi PC , Goldfarb MI, et al. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: a comparison to general population weights. Med Care. 1986; 24:973-80.

Wolfson AD , Sinclair AJ , Bombardier C. , McGreer A. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long Term Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982.

Anderson NH Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York : Academic Press, 1981.

Von Winteifeldt D. , Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

10.

Poulton EC Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989.

11.

MacKenzie EJ , Damiano AM , Luchter S. , Miller TR , Ditunno JF A functional capacity index for traumatic injuries—a concept paper. 1992. Available upon request (AMD).

12.

Damiano AM Further Development and Evaluation of the Functional Capacity Index (Dissertation) Baltimore, MD: Johns Hop-kins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1993.

13.

IMSL User's Manual. Houston, TX: IMSL, Inc., 1984.