Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 480-488

  Littenberg, Benjamin ^a   Partilo, Steven ^a   Licata, Anita ^a   Kattan, Michael W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Decision making; Decision support techniques; Health status; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PAPER STANDARD GAMBLE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SKIN DISEASES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; VERMONT;

EID: 0344495398     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03259817     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253-8.
2. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Grover SA. Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Med Decis Making 1999;19(2):149-56.
3. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 1996;16(3):217-25.
4. Bakker C, Rutten-van Molken M, Hidding A, van Doorslaer E, Bennet K, van der Linden S. Patient utilities in ankylosing spondylitis and the association with other outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 1994;21(7):1298-304.
5. Froberg DC, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - ii: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459-71.
6. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(6):593-600.
7. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spliker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 253-65.
8. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:477-87.
9. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22(6):543-52.
10. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3):315-29.
11. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1980.
12. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. U-titer: a utility assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Washington, DC: McGraw Hill; 1991. p. 701-5.
13. Lenert LA, Hornberger JC. Computer-assisted quality of life assessment for clinical trials. Proc JAMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:992-6.
14. Ross PL, Littenberg B, Fearn P, Scardino PT, Karakiewicz PI, Kattan MW. Paper standard gamble: a paper-based measure of standard gamble utility for current health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:135-147.
15. Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) - a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994;19:210-6.
16. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12): construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability. Med Care. 1996;23:220-33.
17. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 3rd. ed. Lincoln (RI): Quality Metric; 1998.
18. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press; 1980.
19. Bland IM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-10.
20. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1981.
21. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613-9.
22. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-74.
23. Nease RF, Whitcup SM, Ellwein LB, Fox G, Littenberg B. Utility-based estimates of the relative morbidity of visual impairment and angina. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2000;7:169-85.
24. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Hatcher J. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index - Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian general social survey health questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:249-57.
25. Nease RF, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. JAMA. 1995;273(15):1185-90.
26. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston (MA): New England Medical Center: The Health Institute; 1993.
27. Bryce C, Angus D, Stahl J, Switala J, Tsevat J, Roberts M. Using health status measures to predict utilities in patients with end-stage liver disease. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4):534.
28. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1115-28.
29. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Thiel EC. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Care. 1993;31(11):1002-12.
30. Sylvia J, Jansen M, Stiggelbout A, et al. A shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):62-71.