Testing the predective validity of the time trade-off and the Stardard Gamble
AbstractThis paper tests the consistency of health utility measurements with individual preferences. We compare three methods, the time trade-off, the standard gamble and a version of the standard gamble that corrects for the deviations from expected utility modelled by prospect theory. Individual preferences are measured both through a ranking task and through a choice task. In decisions involving no risk the time trade-off is most consistent with people’s preferences with the standard gamble a close second. In decisions involving risk the corrected standard gamble is most consistent with people’s preferences. Our data do not support the common assumption in health economics that utility is transferable across decision contexts.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centro de Estudios Andaluces in its series Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces with number E2007/14.
Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Health utility measurement; QALYs; stardard gamble; time trade-off; prospect theory.;
Other versions of this item:
- JOSE MARIA ABELLAN-PERPIÑAN & Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2007. "Testing the Predictive Validity of the Time Trade-Off and the Standard Gamble," Working Papers 07.17, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
- I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Teresa Rodríguez).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.