Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes

Health Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 149-159

  Oliver, Adam ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Internal consistency; Loss aversion; Lottery equivalents; Standard gamble

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH STATISTICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MOST PROBABLE NUMBER METHOD; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDENT; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MARKOV CHAINS; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 13844299138     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.889     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30.
2. Torrance G, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559-575.
3. Rutten-van Molken M, Bakker C, van Doorslaer E, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Med Care 1995; 33: 922-937.
4. Oliver A. The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J Health Econ 2003; 22: 659-674.
5. Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Philips P. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Econ Pap 1995; 47: 676-695.
6. Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, O'Reilly D, Philips P. The value of preventing non-fatal road injuries: findings of a willingness- to-pay national sample survey. Working Paper WP/SRC/2. Transport Research Laboratory, London, 1993.
7. Bleichrodt H. Applications of utility theory in the economic evaluation of health care. Ph.D. Thesis. Erasmus University: Rotterdam, 1996.
8. Bleichrodt H. Probability weighting in choice under risk: an empirical test. J Risk Uncertainty 2001; 23: 185-198.
9. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till J, Boyd N. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982; 2: 449-462.
10. Morrison G. An assessment and comparison of selected methods for eliciting quality of life valuations from the public. Ph.D. Thesis. University of York: York, 1996.
11. McCord M, de Neufville R. 'Lottery equivalents': reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Manage Sci 1986; 32: 56-60.
12. Bleichrodt H, Pinto J-L, Wakker P. Using descriptive findings of prospect theory to improve prescriptive applications of expected utility. Manage Sci 2001; 47: 1498-1514.
13. Hershey J, Schoemaker P. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Manage Sci 1985; 31: 1213-1231.
14. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-291.
15. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quart J Econ 1991; 107: 1039-1061.
16. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty 1992; 5: 297-323.
17. Bleichrodt H, Pinto J-L. Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. J Math Psychol 2002; 46: 315-337.
18. Carthy T, Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins M, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Pigeon N, Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 2 - the CV/SG 'chained' approach. J Risk Uncertainty 1999; 17: 187-213.
19. Chilton S, Spencer A. Empirical evidence of inconsistency in standard gamble choices under direct and indirect elicitation methods. Swiss J Econ Statis 2001; 137: 65-86.