A Federal Trade Commission study evaluating the quality of fit of cosmetic contact lenses by three fitter groups identified few differences. However, the prices charged by commercial optometrists were lower. The methodology and findings are reviewed with attention to the generalizability of the findings and their implications for public policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BondRonald S., KwokaJohn E.Jr., PhelenJohn J., and WhittenIra T. (1980), Effects of Restrictions on Advertising and Commercial Practice in the Professions: The Case of Optometry.Federal Trade Commission, Staff Report, Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C.
2.
CampbellDonald T. and StanleyJulian C. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
3.
GleasonSandra E. and StiffRonald (1985), “Research Issues in the Evaluation of the Quality of Professional Services: The Case of Legal Services,”Policy Studies Review (Aug.), 42–50.
4.
HaileyGary D., BrombergJonathan R., and MulhollandJoseph P. (1983), A Comparative Analysis of Cosmetic Contact Lens Fitting by Opthalmologists, Optometrists, and Opticians.Federal Trade Commission, Staff Report, Bureau of Consumer Protection and Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C.
5.
HaileyGary D., LatseyChristine, KlurfeldScott P., HilderElizabeth R., SummersErica L., KinscheckRenate, and LatanichTerry S. (1980), State Restrictions on Vision Care Providers: The Effects on Consumers.Federal Trade Commission, Staff Report, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C.
6.
MurisTimothy J. and McChesneyFred S. (1979), “Advertising and the Price and Quality of Legal Services: The Case for Legal Clinics,”American Bar Foundation Research Journal1 (Winter), 179–207.
7.
SeligmannJean, GosnellMariana, HuckJane, and GayleStephen H. (1978), “Retail Dentistry,”Newsweek (Nov. 27), 63.
8.
SudmanSeymour and FerberRobert (1979), Consumer Panels.Chicago: American Marketing Association.
