Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wakker, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stiggelbout, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wakker, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stiggelbout, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 15, No. 2, 180-186 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500212

Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation through the Rank-dependent Model for Risky Choices

Peter Wakker, PhD

Anne Stiggelbout, MSc

The standard-gamble (SG) method has been accepted as the "gold standard" for the elic itation of utility when risk or uncertainty is involved in decisions, and thus for the measurement of utility in medical decisions. It is based on the assumptions of expected-utility theory. Unfortunately, there is now abundant evidence that expected utility is not empirically valid, and that the SG method overestimates risk aversion and the utilities of impaired health states. This paper shows how rank-dependent utility theory, a newly developed theory in decision science, can explain the main violations of expected utility. Thus it provides a means for correcting the SG method and for improving the assessments of quality-adjusted life years for medical decisions in which there is uncertainty about outcomes. Key words: health- state utility; risk aversion; rank dependence; medical decision making; standard gamble. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:180-186)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. Schwartz
The State of the Field
Med Decis Making, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 236 - 237.
[PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. B. Rosen, J. S. Tsai, and S. M. Downs
Variations in Risk Attitude across Race, Gender, and Education
Med Decis Making, November 1, 2003; 23(6): 511 - 517.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management ScienceHome page
H. Bleichrodt, J. L. Pinto, and P. P. Wakker
Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility
Management Science, November 1, 2001; 47(11): 1498 - 1514.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
G. C. Brown, M. M. Brown, and S. Sharma
Cost-Utility Analysis
Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2001; 134(7): 625 - 626.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. M. Bayoumi and D. A. Redelmeier
Decision Analysis with Cumulative Prospect Theory
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2000; 20(4): 404 - 411.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. F.M. Stalmeier and T. G.G. Bezembinder
The Discrepancy between Risky and Riskless Utilities: A Matter of Framing?
Med Decis Making, October 1, 1999; 19(4): 435 - 447.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. R. Treadwell and L. A. Lenert
Health Values and Prospect Theory
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1999; 19(3): 344 - 352.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
L. Lalonde, A. E. Clarke, L. Joseph, and S. A. Grover
Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment
Med Decis Making, April 1, 1999; 19(2): 149 - 156.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. C. Sorum
Measuring Patient Preferences by Willingness to Pay to Avoid: The Case of Acute Otitis Media
Med Decis Making, January 1, 1999; 19(1): 27 - 37.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
S. J.T. Jansen, A. M. Stiggelbout, P. P. Wakker, T. P.M. Vliet Vlieland, J.-W. H. Leer, M. A. Nooy, and J. Kievit
Patients' Utilities for Cancer Treatments: A Study of the Chained Procedure for the Standard Gamble and Time Tradeoff
Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 391 - 399.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
I. Unic, P. F.M. Stalmeier, L. C.G. Verhoef, and W. A.J. Van Daal
Assessment of the Time-tradeoff Val ues for Prophylactic Mastectomy of Women with a Suspected Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1998; 18(3): 268 - 277.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
D. J. Cher, J. Miyamoto, and L. A. Lenert
Incorporating Risk Attitude into Markov-process Decision Models:: Importance for Individual Decision Making
Med Decis Making, July 1, 1997; 17(3): 340 - 350.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. F.M. Krabbe, M.-L. Essink-Bot, and G. J. Bonsel
On the Equivalence of Collectively and Individually Collected Responses: Standard-gamble and Time-tradeoff Judgments of Health States
Med Decis Making, June 1, 1996; 16(2): 120 - 132.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
N. V. Dawson
Disease Spectrum and Health-status Perceptions
Med Decis Making, June 1, 1996; 16(2): 195 - 196.
[PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
L. Eeckhoudt
Expected Utility Theory--Is It Normative or Simply "Practical"?
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1996; 16(1): 12 - 13.
[PDF]