Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes

Medical Care

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 357-365

  Krabbe, Paul F M ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health outcomes; Health states; Measurement; Ranking; Scaling models; Subjective; Thurstone; Values

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 41149086602     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31815ceca9     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science. 1946;103: 677-680.
2. Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Gornbein JA. Subjective judgements of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear Hear. 1997;18:294-306.
3. Torgerson WS. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York, NY: Wiley; 1958.
4. Gulliksen H. Paired comparisons and the logic of measurement. Psychol Rev. 1946;53:199-213.
5. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgments. Psychol Rev. 1927;34: 273-286.
6. Rasch G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1966;19:49-57.
7. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.
8. Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1:1-27.
9. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark. 1990; 54:3-19.
10. Maydeu-Olivares A, Böckenholt U. Structural equation modelling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychol Meth. 2005;10:285-304.
11. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1121-1132.
12. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
13. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37: 53-72.
14. Krabbe PFM. Revealing valuation structures of health states with singular value decomposition. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:30-37.
15. Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45:238-244.
16. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scales in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 2006;15:653-664.
17. Krabbe PF, Stalmeier PF, Lamers LM, et al. Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1651-1661.
18. Pearson RG, Byars GE. The Development and Validation of a Check-List for Measuring Subjective Fatigue. Randolf AFB, TX: School of Aviation, USAF. Report No. 56-115.
19. Fanshel S, Bush JW. A health-status index and its application to health-services outcomes. Oper Res. 1970;18:1021-1066.
20. Kind P. A comparison of two models for scaling health indicators. Int J Epidemiol. 1982;11:271-275.
21. Hadorn DC, Hays RD, Uebersax J, et al. Improving task comprehension in the measurement of health state preferences: a trial of informational cartoon figures and a paired-comparison task. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45:233-243.
22. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1641-1652.
23. Kind P. Applying paired comparisons models to EQ-5D valuations - deriving TTO utilities from ordinal preference data. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, eds. EQ-5D Concepts and Methods: A Developmental History. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005.
24. Edwards AL. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers; 1957.
25. Krus DJ, Kennedy PH. Normal scaling of dominance matrices: The domain-referenced model. Educ Psychol Meas. 1977;37:189-193.
26. Andrich D. Relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Appl Psychol Meas. 1978;2:449-460.
27. Jansen PGW. Relationships between the Thurstone, Coombs, and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Appl Psychol Meas. 1984;8:373-383.
28. Brogden HE. The Rasch model, the law of comparative judgment and additive conjoint measurement. Psychometrika. 1977;42:631-634.
29. McIver JP, Carmines EG. Unidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1981.
30. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:559-569.
31. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional trade-off and utility independence. Med Decis Mak. 1997;17:21-32.
32. Parkin D, Devlin N. 'Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA? Yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?' A rejoinder. Health Econ. 2007;16:649-651.
33. Bradley RA, Terry ME. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika. 1955;39:324-345.
34. Luce RD. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, NY: Wiley; 1959.
35. Wickens TD. Elementary Signal Detection Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002.
36. Green PE, Rao VR. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res. 1971;8:355-363.
37. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1974.
38. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
39. McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev. 2001;91:351-378.
40. Hakim Z, Pathak DS. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ. 1999;8:103-116.
41. Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr. 2003;1:12.
42. Graig BM, Busschbach JJV, Salomon JA. Ordinal valuation of health states: a seven country comparison. Proceedings of the EuroQol Plenary Meeting. September 14-15, 2006; Barcelona, Spain.