The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation versus Face-to-Face Interview

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 170-180

  Damschroder, Laura J ^a,b,e   Baron, Jonathan ^c   Hershey, John C ^c,d   Asch, David A ^a,c   Jepson, Christopher ^c   Ubel, Peter A ^a,b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer elicitation; Cost effectiveness; Internet survey; Person tradeoff; Randomized trial; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOOT DISEASE; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERVIEW; LEG DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARALYSIS; PARESTHESIA; PERSON TRADEOFF MEASUREMENT; QUADRIPLEGIA; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

DEMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; PHILADELPHIA; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 1642268695     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04263160     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201-8.
2. Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 1999;8:25-39.
3. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9:127-36.
4. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy. 1998; 43:33-44.
5. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:108-16.
6. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Baron J. Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy. 2002;61:189-99.
7. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Pinto-Prades JL. Life-saving treatments and disabilities. Are all QALYs created equal? Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1999;15;738-48.
8. Olsen JA. Persons vs years: two ways of eliciting implicit weights. Health Econ, 1994;3:39-46.
9. Pinto-Prades JL. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ. 1997;6:71-81.
10. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:33-41.
11. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy. 1993;24:227-38.
12. Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ. 1998;7:307-12.
13. Baron J, Wu Z, Brennan DJ, Weeks C, Ubel PA. Analog scale, magnitude estimation, and person trade-off as measures of health utility: biases and their correction. J Behav Decis Making. 2001;14:17-34.
14. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res. 1973;8:228-45.
15. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economics evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1-164.
16. Baron J, Ubel PA. Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;89:1100-18.
17. Schwappach DLB. The equivalence of numbers: the social value of avoiding health decline: an experimental Web-based study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2002;2:3.
18. Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL. An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:370-7.
19. Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:15-22.
20. Miller ET, Neal DJ, Roberts LJ, et al. Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: is there a difference between Internet-based assessment and traditional methods? Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16:56-63.
21. Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Reyna V. Utility elicitation using single-item questions compared with a computerized interview. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:97-104.
22. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Faustman WO, Garber AM. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care. 1997;35:915-20.
23. Lenert LA, Soetikno RM. Automated computer interviews to elicit utilities: potential applications in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4:49-56.
24. Lenert LA. The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:811-7.
25. Nease RF Jr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B. Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:175-82.
26. Soetikno RM, Mrad R, Pao V, Lenert LA. Quality-of-life research on the Internet: feasibility and potential biases in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4:426-35.
27. DeRouvray C, Couper MP. Designing a strategy for reducing "no opinion" responses in Web-based surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20:3-9.
28. Bangsberg DR, Bronstone A, Hofmann R. A computer-based assessment detects regimen misunderstandings and nonadherence for patients on HIV antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Care. 2002;14:3-15.
29. Pettit FA. A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002;34:50-4.
30. Cooley PC, Rogers SM, Turner CF, Al-Tayyib AA, Willis GB, Ganapathi L. Using touch screen audio-CASI to obtain data on sensitive topics. Comput Human Behav. 2001;17:285-93.
31. Couper MP. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q. 2000;64:464-94.
32. Crawford S, Couper MP, Lamias M. Web surveys: perceptions of burden. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2001;19:146-62.
33. Sills SJ, Song C. Innovations in survey research: an application of Web-based surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20:22-30.
34. Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Econ. 2001;10:233-43.
35. Helgeson JG, Ursic ML. The decision process equivalency of electronic versus pencil-and-paper data collection methods. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 1989;7:296-310.
36. Sproull IS. Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Acad Manage J. 1986;29:159-69.
37. Donaldson C, Thomas R, Torgerson DJ. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Appl Econ. 1997;29:79-84.
38. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7:313-26.
39. Tversky A, Stattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev. 1998;95:371-84.
40. Schwarz N, Bless H, Bohner G, Harlacher U, Kellenbenz M. Response scales as frames of reference: the impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgments. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5:37-49.
41. Schwarz N, Strack F, Mueller G, Chassein B. The range of response alternatives may determine the meaning of the question: further evidence on informative functions of response alternatives. Social Cognition. 1988;6:107-17.
42. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76-83.
43. Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making. 2000;20:194-206.
44. Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychol Bull. 1997;122:72-88.
45. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1-186.
46. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.
47. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121-30.
48. Horton NJ, Lipsitz SR. Review of software to fit generalized estimating equation regression models. Am Stat. 1999;53:160-9.