IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v56y2003i7p1531-1541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification

Author

Listed:
  • Shiell, Alan
  • Hawe, Penelope
  • Fletcher, Megan

Abstract

This study examines the test-retest reliability of two methods of establishing health preference weights and assesses the effectiveness of a brief values-clarification exercise. Survey participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups and received either a standard protocol for eliciting health preferences (comparison group) or an augmented protocol designed to encourage reflection and deliberation (intervention group). Preferences were elicited on three occasions over 5 weeks. The results show that the two valuation methods each had acceptable levels of test-retest reliability. No significant differences were found in preference weights over time or between intervention and comparison groups. The values-clarification exercise had some impact on individual answers, but the changes cancelled each other out at the group level. There was no discernable intervention effect at the group level. It is premature to draw conclusions from one study about why, or even how, a person's valuations might change over time, but our results support the use of current valuation techniques for group-level analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiell, Alan & Hawe, Penelope & Fletcher, Megan, 2003. "Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1531-1541, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1531-1541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00154-5
    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. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    2. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe, 2006. "Test-retest reliability of willingness to pay," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(3), pages 173-178, September.
    3. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    4. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.

    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:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1531-1541. 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.