IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health

  • Lindeboom, Maarten
  • van Doorslaer, Eddy

There is a concern that ordered responses on health questions may differ across populations or even across subgroups of a population. This reporting heterogeneity may invalidate group comparisons and measures of health inequality. This paper proposes a test for differential reporting in ordered response models which allows us to distinguish between cut-point shift and index shift. The method is illustrated using Canadian National Population Health Survey data. The McMaster Health Utility Index (HUI) is used as a more objective health measure than the simple 5-point scale of self-assessed health. We find clear evidence of index shifting and cut-point shifting for age and gender, but not for income, education or language.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-4CJXVJ2-1/2/ad588b1d3ef3003232f16a412b41c2bf
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 23 (2004)
Issue (Month): 6 (November)
Pages: 1083-1099

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:23:y:2004:i:6:p:1083-1099
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Klaauw, B. van der & Koning, R.H., 2000. "Testing the normality assumption in the sample selection model with an application to travel demand," Research Report 00F37, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
  2. Amir Shmueli, 2002. "Reporting Heterogeneity in the Measurement of Health and Health-Related Quality of Life," PharmacoEconomics, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 20(6), pages 405-412.
  3. Crossley, Thomas F. & Kennedy, Steven, 2002. "The reliability of self-assessed health status," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 643-658, July.
  4. Shmueli, Amir, 2003. "Socio-economic and demographic variation in health and in its measures: the issue of reporting heterogeneity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 125-134, July.
  5. Doorslaer, Eddy van & Jones, Andrew M., 2003. "Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 61-87, January.
  6. van Doorslaer, Eddy & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 2003. "Does inequality in self-assessed health predict inequality in survival by income? Evidence from Swedish data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1621-1629, November.
  7. van Doorslaer, Eddy & Wagstaff, Adam & Bleichrodt, Han & Calonge, Samuel & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Gerfin, Michael & Geurts, Jose & Gross, Lorna & Hakkinen, Unto & Leu, Robert E., 1997. "Income-related inequalities in health: some international comparisons," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 93-112, February.
  8. Groot, Wim, 2000. "Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 403-420, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:23:y:2004:i:6:p:1083-1099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.