Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lalonde, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grover, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lalonde, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grover, S. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment

Lyne Lalonde

Ann E. Clarke

Lawrence Joseph

Steven A. Grover

The authors compared the abilities of descriptive and valuational health-related quality- of-life measures to discriminate healthy participants (n = 39) from those on diets for dyslipidemia (n = 35) and angina patients (n = 30). On the rating scale, the time tradeoff, and the General Health Perception subscale of the SF-36 Health Survey, the participants with dyslipidemia or angina reported lower mean scores than the healthy participants. No differences were detected between these groups on conventional or chained standard gamble (SG) scales. The distribution of the conventional and the chained SG scores was very skewed, with the vast majority of scores being equal or very close to the maximum score. It is concluded that in this study the discriminant ability of the chained SG was comparable to that of the conventional SG and inferior to descriptive and non-risky valuational scaling techniques. This may be explained by the distortion of probabilities, by a misunderstanding of the SG chained assessment, and by a strong certainty effect. Key words: dyslipidemia; coronary heart disease pre vention; angina; health-related quality of life; health status; SF-36 Health Survey; va lidity. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:149-156)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 2, 149-156 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900205
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
L. J. Damschroder, T. R. Roberts, B. J. Zikmund-Fisher, and P. A. Ubel
Why People Refuse to Make Tradeoffs in Person Tradeoff Elicitations: A Matter of Perspective?
Med Decis Making, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 266 - 280.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
B. Littenberg, S. Partilo, A. Licata, and M. W. Kattan
Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility
Med Decis Making, November 1, 2003; 23(6): 480 - 488.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. F. M. Stalmeier
Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments
Med Decis Making, February 1, 2002; 22(1): 53 - 64.
[Abstract] [PDF]