Inconsistency and health state valuations
AbstractThe comparison of scaling methods used to value health states sometimes rests upon an analysis of aggregate scores. This analysis is usually undertaken once "inconsistent' respondents have been excluded from the data. However, it is important to be able to judge the extent to which respondents as a whole are logically consistent when assigning values to health states. The degree of inconsistency will depend on how the health states are described, how the questionnaire is administered and who the respondents are. This paper analyses the inconsistency rates from two studies in which valuations for EuroQol health states were elicited using the visual analogue scale (VAS) method. The studies differed in design and incorporated several different variants of the standard EuroQol questionnaire, thus providing an opportunity to examine the relative importance of the different factors that were thought to affect inconsistency rates. Our general conclusions are that inconsistency rates are higher for interviewer-based than for postal surveys, possibly due to response bias, and that inconsistency rates are positively related to age and negatively related to educational attainment.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 42 (1996)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
- Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336.
- Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
- William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85.
- Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
- N J Devlin & P Hansen & P Kind & A H Williams, 2000. "The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs," Working Papers 180chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.