IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i4p487-498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Carol A.E. Nickerson

Abstract

A number of empirical studies have attempted to assess the convergent validity of health-state utilities obtained using two or more scaling methods (standard gamble, time tradeoff, rating scale, magnitude estimation, equivalence technique, and willing ness-to-pay). The data from these studies can be mapped onto an N x K matrix, where N and K are the numbers of respondents and health states, respectively, and each matrix cell consists of a pair of health-state utilities, one obtained using scaling method X and the other obtained using scaling method Y. The Pearson's r assessing convergent validity can then be computed as 1) the unraveled correlation over all N x K data pairs, 2) the mean within-respondent correlation, 3) the mean within-health- state correlation, or 4) the correlation of the across-respondents means. These four different ways of computing the correlation do not necessarily yield the same results. The appropriateness of each method of computing the correlation is considered. Key words: convergent validity; equivalence technique; health-state preferences; health- state utilities; magnitude estimation; person tradeoff; rating scale; scaling; standard gamble; time tradeoff; willingness-to-pay. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:487-496)

Suggested Citation

  • Carol A.E. Nickerson, 1999. "Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 487-498, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:487-498
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900417
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900417?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    2. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    3. Peep F.M. Stalmeier & Thom G.G. Bezembinder & Ivana J. Unic, 1996. "Proportional Heuristics in Time Tradeoff and Conjoint Measurement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 36-44, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carol Nickerson, 2007. "Theory/Analysis Mismatch: Comment on Fredrickson and Joiner’s (2002) Test of the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 537-561, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine J. Stevens & Christopher J. McCabe & John E. Brazier, 2006. "Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 527-533, May.
    2. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    3. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Ivan Williams & Linda Levy & C.D. Naylor, 1996. "Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 262-272, August.
    4. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    5. Robert J. Brent, 2012. "The Effects Of Hiv Medications On The Quality Of Life Of Older Adults In New York City," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 967-976, August.
    6. Heather J. Sutherland & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & Norman F. Boyd & James E. Till, 1982. "Attitudes Toward Quality of Survival," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(3), pages 299-309, August.
    7. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    8. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    9. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    10. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Pain and Suffering Awards: They Shouldn't Be (Just) about Pain and Suffering," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 195-216, June.
    11. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex, 1995. "Time preference, duration and health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 289-299, July.
    12. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    13. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    15. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    16. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.
    17. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    18. Eric B. Bass & Earl P. Steinberg & Henry A. Pitt & Robert I. Griffiths & Keith D. Lillemoe & George P. Saba & Christina Johns, 1994. "Comparison of the Rating Scale and the Standard Gamble in Measuring Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Gallstone Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 307-314, October.
    19. Lena Lundberg & Magnus Johannesson & Dag G.L. Isacson & Lars Borgquist, 1999. "The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-140, April.
    20. Zeynep Erkin & Matthew D. Bailey & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Eliciting Patients' Revealed Preferences: An Inverse Markov Decision Process Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 358-365, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:487-498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.