Testing the Predictive Validity of the Time Trade-Off and the Standard 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 modeled 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 Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 07.17.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2007
Date of revision:
Health utility measurement; QALYs; standard gamble; time trade-off; prospect theory.;
Other versions of this item:
- Jose María Abellán-Perpiñán & Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2007. "Testing the predective validity of the time trade-off and the Stardard Gamble," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2007/14, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
- 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, 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: (Publicación Digital - UPO).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.