IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?

Listed author(s):
  • David Parkin

    (City Health Economics Centre, City University, London, UK)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (City Health Economics Centre, City University, London, UK)

This paper critically reviews theoretical and empirical propositions regarding visual analogue scale (VAS) valuations of health states and their use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). A widely repeated assertion in the economic evaluation literature is the inferiority, on theoretical grounds, of VAS valuations. Five common criticisms are: VAS lacks a theoretical foundation; VAS values are not 'choice based'; VAS values are not consistent with utility-under-uncertainty requirements; context and range effects observed in VAS valuation data mean that they cannot even be considered to represent measurable value functions; and when completing a VAS, people are not trying to express values. We address each of these points: the VAS does have a theoretical basis, being entirely consistent with the non-welfarist foundations of QALYs and CUA; the 'choiceless' nature of the VAS is incorrectly judged by stated preference criteria relevant to monetary rather than health state valuations, and VAS valuations do in any case involve an element of choice; because valuations are intended for use in social decision-making, it may be advantageous that VAS values are elicited under conditions of certainty; although there are measurement problems with the VAS, means such as better design and transformations of data can deal with these; and with any method of eliciting values, it is unrealistic to expect people consciously to think in terms of social science constructs such as utilities. Moreover, there are problems, both theoretical and empirical, with alternative methods. Selection of the appropriate valuation method should be based on empirical performance, and in this the VAS has important advantages. We conclude that there are strong grounds for disputing the consensus view against the VAS and challenge those who hold it to deploy more convincing arguments and evidence in favour of alternative methods. However, we identify areas where further research is required to establish and consolidate the potential of the VAS as a valuation method. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1086
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 15 (2006)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
Pages: 653-664

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:7:p:653-664
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1086
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

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. Parkin, David & Rice, Nigel & Jacoby, Ann & Doughty, Julie, 2004. "Use of a visual analogue scale in a daily patient diary: modelling cross-sectional time-series data on health-related quality of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 351-360, July.
  2. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
  3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
  4. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences 'well constructed'?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48.
  5. Buckingham, K. & Devlin, N. & Tabberer, M., 2004. "A theoretical framework for TTO valuations and a taxonomy of TTO approaches: results from a pilot study," Working Papers 04/07, Department of Economics, City University London.
  6. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations - a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544.
  7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
  8. Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
  9. Nancy Devlin & Paul Hansen & Peter Herbison & Susan Macran, 2005. "A ‘new and improved’ EQ-5D valuation questionnaire?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 73-82, March.
  10. 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.
  11. Nord, Erik, 1993. "The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 227-238, August.
  12. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
  13. Stefan Björk & Anna Norinder, 1999. "The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 117-126.
  14. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
  15. Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
  16. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
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:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:7:p:653-664. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.