IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Preference‐based index measurement of health‐related quality of life: when does it reflect only arbitrary settings of the researcher?

Listed author(s):
  • Uwe Konerding
Registered author(s):

    In health economics, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often assessed by means of preference‐based index measurement instruments (e.g. EQ‐5D, SF‐6D, HUI). Each instrument of this kind consists of (1) a multi‐attribute classification system for distinguishing health states and (2) a scoring function which assigns a valuation to each health state distinguished within the classification system. Scoring functions are often produced according to the so‐called statistical approach which consists of two steps: (1) the valuations of some of the health states of the classification system are empirically determined and (2) the scoring function values for all health states are estimated from the empirically determined valuations using a theoretical model, i.e. an index model. This approach can run into problems because the empirically determined valuations necessarily contain arbitrary settings. This article is concerned with how these arbitrary settings together with the index model affect the final scoring function values. It is shown that for many conceivable index models the final scoring function values have no empirical meaning. Only additive models with a free additive constant are appropriate for representing the information contained in the empirically determined valuation. Only these models should be used within the statistical approach. Copyright (C) 2010 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:
    Download Restriction: no

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

    Volume (Year): 20 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 4 (April)
    Pages: 471-483

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:471-483
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:20:y:2011:i:4:p:471-483. 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.