IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v15y2006i8p835-848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin M. Craig
  • Sulabha Ramachandran

Abstract

In a health state valuation study, respondents may be asked to rank a deck of cards, with each card representing a particular health state. A logical inconsistency occurs when a more severe health state card is ranked higher than a less severe card. Occasional inconsistencies may be justified by errors in judgment or measurement. However, when respondents return shuffled decks, their responses must be removed from the sample; otherwise, valuation estimates will be biased toward the median. In this paper, we present a logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. This statistical criterion is based on the relative risk of a shuffled deck and generalizable to all health state classification systems, subsets (or decks) of health states, and valuation techniques. We applied the criterion to secondary data collected from 4048 United States and 3395 United Kingdom respondents. In both studies, respondents evaluated 12‐card decks of EQ‐5D health states using time trade‐off and visual analog scale techniques. Among the UK respondents, a small portion (approximately 5%) did not satisfy the criterion; their exclusion significantly changed the sample characteristics and the mean value estimates of the EQ‐5D health states. Similar results were found among the US respondents. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:8:p:835-848
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1108
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Badia, Xavier & Roset, Monserrat & Herdman, Michael, 1999. "Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 943-950, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Claire Gudex, 1994. "Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 020cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Robinson, Angela & Dolan, Paul & Williams, Alan, 1997. "Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: What lies behind the numbers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1289-1297, October.
    7. Jeff Richardson & Neil Atherton Day & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2004. "Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 62-88, March.
    8. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    2. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    3. Benjamin M. Craig & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2011. "Toward a more universal approach in health valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 864-875, July.
    4. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    2. Benjamin M. Craig, 2009. "The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 217-225, February.
    3. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Samuel Aballéa & Aki Tsuchiya, 2007. "Seeing for yourself: feasibility study towards valuing visual impairment using simulation spectacles," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 537-543, May.
    6. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    8. Ayse Kuspinar & Nancy Mayo, 2014. "A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 759-773, August.
    9. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. 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.
    11. Katharine S. Gries & Dean A. Regier & Scott D. Ramsey & Donald L. Patrick, 2017. "Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 375-384, June.
    12. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    13. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    14. Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & Young, Tracey A., 2007. "Estimating a preference-based single index from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)," MPRA Paper 29804, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Dena M. Bravata & Lorene M. Nelson & Alan M. Garber & Mary K. Goldstein, 2005. "Invariance and Inconsistency in Utility Ratings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(2), pages 158-167, March.
    16. Dolan, Paul & Stalmeier, Peep, 2003. "The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 445-458, May.
    17. Brazier, J & Dolan, P, 2005. "Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method," MPRA Paper 29760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. F. E. van Nooten & X. Koolman & W. B. F. Brouwer, 2009. "The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 549-558, May.
    19. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    20. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:8:p:835-848. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.