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

Valuing health using visual analogue scales and rank data: does the visual analogue scale contain cardinal information?

Listed author(s):
  • Claire Hulme


    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Richard Edlin


    (School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland)

Registered author(s):

    Valuation studies have favoured standard gamble (SG) and time trade off techniques (TTO) over visual analogue scales (VAS). The lack of observable trade off properties of VAS precludes preferences being measured on a cardinal scale. The inferences, and indeed the premise, of many perceived VAS deficiencies have been debated and, as part of this on-going debate, Brazier and McCabe (2007) asked whether VAS data added anything to rank data; echoing the suggestion that VAS functioned primarily as a prop for ranking exercises (Torrance et al 2001). Previous studies suggest that analyses of ordinal (rank data) can provide valuation functions broadly equivalent to cardinal health state data models (Salomon, 2003; McCabe et al, 2006). This paper adds to the debate by considering whether ordinal preferences, cardinal differences, and cardinal scores from VAS data provide substantively different valuation algorithms. That is, is potentially valuable information lost by using ordinal (rank) data rather than cardinal VAS scores? In the case where a cardinal difference model can provide a substantively better fit than an ordinal preference model, then we can say that the VAS contains useful cardinal information that cannot be incorporated into an ordinal model. A further aim is to assess whether VAS-based ordinal preferences (rather than TTO- or SG-based ordinal preferences) are likely to be sufficient reliably to inform policy. Using rescaled data from a UK general population survey seven separate random effects logit regressions were carried out for ordinal preferences and seven for cardinal differences. In contrast to previous studies the analyses found that ordinal preference models appear to give different results to cardinal data. Ordinal preference data performed worse than the cardinal difference suggesting that: (1) VAS contains at least some relevant and useful cardinal data and (2) ignoring such data worsens performance of the resulting measures.

    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:
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 0901.

    in new window

    Length: 17 pages
    Date of creation: 2009
    Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:0901
    Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
    Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    in new window

    1. John Brazier & Christopher McCabe, 2007. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin a response: 'yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 645-647.
    2. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    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:lee:wpaper:0901. 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: (Judy Wright)

    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.