IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p273-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Robinson
  • Anne E. Spencer
  • José Luís Pinto-Prades
  • Judith A. Covey

Abstract

There is recent interest in using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to derive health state utility values, and results can differ from time tradeoff (TTO). Clearly, DCE is “choice based,†whereas TTO is generally considered a “matching†task. We explore whether procedural adaptations to the TTO, which make the method more closely resemble a DCE, make TTO and choice converge. In particular, we test whether making the matching procedure in TTO less “transparent†to the respondent reduces disparities between TTO and DCE. We designed an interactive survey that was hosted on the Internet, and 2022 interviews were achieved in the United Kingdom in a representative sample of the population. We found a marked divergence between TTO and DCE, but this was not related to the “transparency†of the TTO procedure. We conclude that a difference in the error structure between TTO and choice and that factors other than differences in utility are affecting choices is driving the divergence. The latter has fundamental implications for the way choice data are analyzed and interpreted.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Robinson & Anne E. Spencer & José Luís Pinto-Prades & Judith A. Covey, 2017. "Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 273-284, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:273-284
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16668343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16668343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16668343?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. Philippe Delquié, 1993. "Inconsistent Trade-Offs Between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1382-1395, November.
    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. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Anne Spencer & Ewan Tomeny & Ruben E. Mujica-Mota & Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2019. "Do time trade-off values fully capture attitudes that are relevant to health-related choices?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(4), pages 559-568, June.
    3. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.

    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. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    2. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An experimental test of loss aversion and scale compatibility," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    6. Anne Rozan, 2004. "Benefit Transfer: A Comparison of WTP for Air Quality between France and Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 295-306, November.
    7. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    8. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    9. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2002. "Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 643-666, July.
    10. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2021.
    11. Mario García Molina & Liliana Alejandra Chicaíza Becerra, 2013. "Felicidad:¿reemplazar o mejorar la utilidad subjetiva?," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, December.
    12. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    13. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    14. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models," Discussion Papers, Series I 279, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    15. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2003. "The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 342-359, March.

    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:37:y:2017:i:3:p:273-284. 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.