IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v20y2011i4p471-483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Uwe Konerding

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Uwe Konerding, 2011. "Preference‐based index measurement of health‐related quality of life: when does it reflect only arbitrary settings of the researcher?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 471-483, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:471-483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1604
    Download Restriction: no

    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: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). 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.

    We have no 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.

    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.