IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v42y1996i4p609-615.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inconsistency and health state valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Dolan, Paul
  • Kind, Paul

Abstract

The comparison of scaling methods used to value health states sometimes rests upon an analysis of aggregate scores. This analysis is usually undertaken once "inconsistent' respondents have been excluded from the data. However, it is important to be able to judge the extent to which respondents as a whole are logically consistent when assigning values to health states. The degree of inconsistency will depend on how the health states are described, how the questionnaire is administered and who the respondents are. This paper analyses the inconsistency rates from two studies in which valuations for EuroQol health states were elicited using the visual analogue scale (VAS) method. The studies differed in design and incorporated several different variants of the standard EuroQol questionnaire, thus providing an opportunity to examine the relative importance of the different factors that were thought to affect inconsistency rates. Our general conclusions are that inconsistency rates are higher for interviewer-based than for postal surveys, possibly due to response bias, and that inconsistency rates are positively related to age and negatively related to educational attainment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dolan, Paul & Kind, Paul, 1996. "Inconsistency and health state valuations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 609-615, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:4:p:609-615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00161-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    2. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    3. N J Devlin & P Hansen & P Kind & A H Williams, 2000. "The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs," Working Papers 180chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85.
    5. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    6. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    7. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336.

    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:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:4:p:609-615. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.