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

The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) II Instrument: Overview and creation of the utility scoring algorithm

Listed author(s):
  • Jeff Richardson


    (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)

  • Stuart Peacock

    (British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)

  • Angelo Iezzi


    (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)

  • Neil Day

    (Centre for Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne)

  • Graeme Hawthorne

    (Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne)

MAU instruments seek to measure the ‘utility’ of health states in a way suitable for use in economic evaluation studies and, in particular, cost utility analysis (CUA). The Assessment of Quality of Life, Mark 2 (AQoL 2) project was undertaken specifically to increase the sensitivity of measurement in the region of full health, where most other instruments, including the earlier AQoL 1 instrument are relatively insensitive. In sum, the AQoL 2 instrument estimates utility using a three stage procedure. Items are (i) weighted and combined using a multiplicative model to obtain dimension scores; (ii) these are similarly weighted and combined to obtain an initial AQoL score; (iii) this is then transformed econometrically to produce the final estimate of a health state utility. As with AQoL 1 the research program also sought to experiment with new methods for achieving this. AQoL 1 was the first instrument to use a multi level descriptive system with five dimensions of health separately modelled and then combined. After experimentation it incorporated a new way of modelling the utility of health states worse than death. AQoL 2 adopted this same multi level structure It was developed in 2 stages. The first used a series of confirmatory factor analysis using Lisrel, to construct dimension models. The second was a confirmatory factor (SEM) analysis of the overall AQoL which combined all of the dimensions. Utility scores were modelled in three stages. Time trade-off (TTO) importance weights were first combined into dimensions and to the dimensions into a single score using multiplicative (non stochastic) models (as with AQoL 1). However these were subsequently adjusted in a third stage econometric ‘correction’ based upon independently collected multi attribute – TTO – scores.

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

Paper provided by Monash University, Centre for Health Economics in its series Centre for Health Economics Research Papers with number 17/07.

in new window

Length: 43 pages
Date of creation: May 2007
Handle: RePEc:mhe:cherps:2007-17
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Building 75, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

Phone: +61-3-9905-0733
Fax: +61-3-9905-8344
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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:mhe:cherps:2007-17. 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: (Teresa Cheong)

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.