'Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin a response: 'Yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?'

Health Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 645-647

  Brazier, John ^a   McCabe, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH ECONOMICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL HEALTH; MODEL; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RATING SCALE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 34250330428     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1246     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, Stevens K. 2003. A review of VAS in economic evaluation. Journal of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 3(3): 293-302.
2. Buckingham K. 1993. A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent). Journal of Health Economics 12: 301-309.
3. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. 2005. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd edn). Oxford Medical Publications: Oxford.
4. Flynn TN, Louviere JL, Peters TJ, Coast J. 2006. Estimating Preferences for a Dermatology Consultation Using Best-Worst Scaling. Comparison of Three Methods of Analysis. Health Economists' Study Group, City University: London.
5. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O'Hagan A, Stevens K. 2006. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. Journal of Health Economics 25(3): 418-431.
6. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka P (ed.). Academic Press: New York; 105-442.
7. Morris J, Durand M. 1989. Category rating methods: numerical and verbal scales - results from a pilot study. Mimeograph, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
8. Nord E. 1991. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. International Journal of Health Planning and Management 6: 234-242.
9. Oliver A. 2003. The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. Journal of Health Economics 22: 659-674.
10. Parkin D, Devlin N. 2006. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuyations in cost-utility analysis? Health Economics 15(7): 653-664.
11. Richardson J. 1994. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Social Science & Medicine 39: 7-21.
12. Robinson A, Dolan P. Williams A. 1997. Valuing health states using VAS, TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Social Science & Medicine 45: 1289-1297.
13. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. 2001. Visual Analogue Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making Editorial 21: 329-334.
14. Salomon JA. 2003. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics 1(1): 12. http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/1/1/12