This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kiebert, G. M. Articles by De Haes, H. J.C.J.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kiebert, G. M. Articles by De Haes, H. J.C.J.M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Test-Retest Reliabilities of Two Treatment-preference Instruments in Measuring Utilities

Anne M. Stiggelbout

Jan-Willem H. Leer

Job Kievit

Hanneke J.C.J.M. De Haes

The authors assessed the test-retest reliabilities of two treatment-preference instruments recently applied to the measurement of the utilities of health states after different treatment modalities for cancer. The first instrument measures the strengths of preferences concerning a choice between a wait-and-see policy, and treatment with radiotherapy after an initial surgical breast-conserving procedure for early breast cancer. The second measures the strengths of preferences concerning a choice between two hypothetical surgical treatment outcomes in cancer of the rectum with different probabilities of expected five-year survival. Both measure the strength of a subject's treatment preference given probabilities of treat ment-related costs and benefits. The subjects were radiotherapy technicians (n = 20) and cancer patients (n = 20) who were interviewed in weeks 2 and 4 of radiotherapy. The test- retest reliabilities of both instruments were inconsistent and moderately high, with Spear- man's rank correlations ranging from 0.38 to 0.81 and weighted kappas ranging from 0.38 to 0.69. To investigate whether the start of treatment with radiotherapy influenced the utilities that patients assigned to health states, the same procedure was applied in another, com parable, group of patients with cancer (n = 20). For this group, the first assessment was made prior to the start of treatment and the second during the second week of radiation therapy. The scores of this group of patients indeed appeared to be less stable than the scores of the patients assessed in weeks 2 and 4 of radiotherapy. However, the instability of the scores could have been the result of test bias. Key words: test-retest reliability; utility assessment; oncology. (Med Decis Making 1993;13:133-140)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 2, 133-140 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. R. Bossema, C. A. M. Marijnen, M. C. M. Baas-Thijssen, C. J. H. van de Velde, and A. M. Stiggelbout Evaluation of the Treatment Tradeoff Method in Rectal Cancer Patients: Is Surgery Preference Related to Outcome Utilities? Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 888 - 898. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Brundage, J. R. Davidson, W. J. Mackillop, D. Feldman-Stewart, and P. Groome Using a Treatment-tradeoff Method to Elicit Preferences for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Med Decis Making, August 1, 1998; 18(3): 256 - 267. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. H.J. Roest, M. J.C. Eijkemans, J. Van Der Donk, P. C. Levendag, C. A. Meeuwis, P. I.M. Schmitz, and J. D. F. Habbema The Use of Confidence Intervals for Individual Utilities:: Limits to Formal Decision Analysis for Treatment Choice Med Decis Making, July 1, 1997; 17(3): 285 - 291. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. B. Bass, S. Wills, I. U. Scott, J. C. Javitt, J. M. Tielsch, O. D. Schein, and E. P. Steinberg Preference Values for Visual States in Patients Planning to Undergo Cataract Surgery Med Decis Making, July 1, 1997; 17(3): 324 - 330. [Abstract] [PDF]