IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i1p67-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie A. Lenert
  • Ann Sturley
  • Marcia Rupnow

Abstract

This study examines the effects of use of an automated computer protocol to correct a common error in utility elicitations—namely, scoring of a health state with a greater impairment as being more desirable than one with lesser impairment. The authors studied the protocol in a sample of 563 members of the Internet-using public. Results revealed that errors were common (17% of ratings) but were typically successfully repaired (individuals who made only 1 or 2 errors had a 75% chance of repairing them). The values of individuals who repaired errors were similar to those without apparent error. In contrast, individuals who refused to repair errors had lower scores for the best health state in the series and higher ones for the worst health state. Results suggest that the repair procedures were successful and that inclusion of utility scores from individuals who fail to repair illogically ordered ratings may bias estimates of mean utilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie A. Lenert & Ann Sturley & Marcia Rupnow, 2003. "Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(1), pages 67-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:67-75
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X02239649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X02239649
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X02239649?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    2. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    3. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    4. Ruixuan Jiang & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee & Axel Mühlbacher & James Shaw & Surrey Walton & A. Simon Pickard, 2021. "Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 17-33, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:23:y:2003:i:1:p:67-75. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.