Testing subject comprehension of utility questionnaires

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 369-376

  Dobrez, Deborah G ^a,b   Calhoun, Elizabeth A ^b,c  

^a EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blindness; Cancer; Comprehension; Quality of life; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLINDNESS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SPECTACLES; STANDARD; TRAINING; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BLINDNESS; CHICAGO; COMPREHENSION; EYEGLASSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PILOT PROJECTS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 1642325463     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018475.17665.6e     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1953.
2. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 253-265.
3. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7(2): 118-133.
4. Woloshin S, et al. Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(5): 382-390.
5. Schwartz LM, et al. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(11): 966-972.
6. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making 1999; 19(4): 473-481.
7. Cella DF, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(3): 570-579.
8. Brady MJ, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy - Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(3): 974-986.
9. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45(11): 1641-1652.
10. Clarke AE, et al. The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Qual Life Res 1997; 6(2): 169-184.
11. 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(6): 477-487.
12. Calhoun EA, et al. Perceptions of cisplatin-related toxicity among ovarian cancer patients and gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 71(3): 369-375.
13. Bennett CL, et al. A comparison of perspectives on prostate cancer: Analysis of utility assessments of patients and physicians. Eur Urol 1997; 32(suppl 3): 86-88.
14. Lenert LA, et al. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Med Care 2000; 38(10): 1011-1021.