IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i11p1641-1652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Krabbe, Paul F. M.
  • Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise
  • Bonsel, Gouke J.

Abstract

The objective of the study was to consider five methods for valuing health states with respect to their comparability (convergent validity, value functions) and reliability. Valuation tasks were performed by 104 student volunteers using five frequently used valuation methods: standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), rating scale (RS), willingness-to-pay (WTP) and the paired comparisons method (PC). Throughout the study, the EuroQol classification system was used to construct 13 health-state descriptions. Validity was investigated using the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) methodology. The extent to which results of one method could be predicted by another was examined by transformations. Reliability of the methods was studied parametrically with Generalisability Theory (an ANOVA extension), as well as non-parametrically. Mean values for SG were slightly higher than TTO values. The RS could be distinguished from the other methods. After a simple power transformation, the RS values were found to be close to SG and TTO. Mean values of WTP were linearly related to SG and TTO, except at the extremes of the scale. However, the reliability of WTP was low and the number of inconsistencies substantial. Valuations made by the RS proved to be the most reliable. Paired comparisons did not provide stable results. In conclusion the results of the parametric transformation function between RS and SG/TTO provide evidence to justify the current use of RS (with transformations) not only for reasons of feasibility and reliability but also for reasons of comparability. A definite judgement on PC requires data of a complete design. Due to the specific structure of the correlation matrix which is inherent in valuing health states, we believe that full MTMM is not applicable for the standard analysis of health-state valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1997. "The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1641-1652, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:11:p:1641-1652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(97)00099-3
    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. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    2. Hammitt, James & Haninger, Kevin, 2011. "Valuing Morbidity Risk: Willingness to Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year," LERNA Working Papers 11.09.343, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    3. Linda A. Merlino & Indranil Bagchi & Thomas N. Taylor & Paul Utrie & Elizabeth Chrischilles & Walton Sumner II & Amy Mudano & Kenneth G. Saag, 2001. "Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 122-132, April.
    4. M. R. Bhatia & J. A. Fox-Rushby, 2003. "Validity of Willingness to Pay: hypothetical versus actual payment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 737-740.
    5. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 307-322, March.
    6. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    7. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    8. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    9. Jason N. Doctor & Han Bleichrodt & H. Jill Lin, 2010. "Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 58-67, January.
    10. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    11. James K. Hammitt, 2002. "QALYs Versus WTP," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 985-1001, October.
    12. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.
    15. Jeffrey Hoch & Carolyn Dewa, 2007. "Lessons from Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Mental Health Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 807-816, October.
    16. Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2006. "Valuation Structures of Health States Revealed with Singular Value Decomposition," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(1), pages 30-37, January.
    17. Brouwer, Werner B. F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2000. "On the economic foundations of CEA. Ladies and gentlemen, take your positions!," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 439-459, July.
    18. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    19. Baron, Jonathan & Ubel, Peter A., 2002. "Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1100-1118, November.
    20. Annemieke De Ridder & Diana De Graeve, 2005. "Order bias in estimates of willingness to pay for drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 146-151, June.

    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:45:y:1997:i:11:p:1641-1652. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.