New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement

Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 713-726

  Bleichrodt, Han ^a   Pinto Prades, Jose Luis ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Choice behavior; Health utility measurement; Preference reversal

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG CHOICE; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPAIN; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; STROKE;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPAIN; STROKE;

EID: 68849100232     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1405     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bateman I, Day B, Loomes G, Sugden R. 2007. Can ranking techniques elicit robust values? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 34: 49-66.
2. Birnbaum MH. 1974. The nonadditivity of personality impressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102: 543-561.
3. Birnbaum MH, Coffey G, Mellers BA, Weiss R. 1992. Utility measurement: configural weight theory and the judge's point of view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18: 331-346.
4. Birnbaum MH, Sutton SE. 1992. Scale convergence and utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52: 183-215.
5. Bonita R, Beaglehole R. 1988. Modification of Rankin scale: recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke 19: 1497-1500.
6. Bostic R, Herrnstein RJ, Luce RD. 1990. The effect on the preference reversal of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 13: 193-212.
7. Diecidue E, Schmidt U, Wakker PP. 2004. The utility of gambling reconsidered. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 29: 241-259.
8. Fishburn PC. 1978. On Handa's 'New theory of cardinal utility' and the maximisation of expected return. Journal of Political Economy 86: 321-324.
9. Fishburn PC. 1980. A simple model for the utility of gambling. Psychometrika 45: 435-448.
10. Goldstein WM, Einhorn HJ. 1987. Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review 94: 236-254.
11. Handa J. 1977. Risk, probabilities and a new theory of cardinal utility. Journal of Political Economy 85: 97-122.
12. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263-291.
13. Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Reyna V. 2001. Utility elicitation using single-item questions compared with a computerized interview. Medical Decision Making 21: 97-104.
14. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. 1971. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89: 46-55.
15. Lindman H. 1971. Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89: 390-397.
16. Loomes G, Sugden R. 1986. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 53: 271-282.
17. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Dag GL, Borquist L. 1999. The relationship between health state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Medical Decision Making 19: 128-141.
18. Mellers BA, Weiss R, Birnbaum MH. 1992. Violations of dominance in pricing judgments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 73-90.
19. Oliver AJ. 2006. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. Journal of Health Economics 25: 803-820.
20. Rankin J. 1957. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. Scottish Medical Journal 2: 200-215.
21. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. 1997. Valuing health states using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Social Science and Medicine 45: 1289-1297.
22. Robinson A, Thomson R, Parkin D, Eccles M, Sudlow M. 2001. How patients with atrial fibrilation value different health outcomes: a standard gamble study. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 6: 92-98.
23. Schmidt U. 1998. A measurement of the certainty effect. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42: 32-47.
24. Stalmeier PFM, Wakker PP, Bezembinder TGG. 1997. Preference reversals: violations of unidimensional procedure invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23: 1196-1205.
25. Starmer C. 2000. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 28: 332-382.
26. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95: 371-384.
27. Tversky A, Simonson I. 1993. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science 39: 1179-1189.
28. Wedell DH. 1991. Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17: 767-778.