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 Lenert, L. A. Articles by Treadwell, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lenert, L. A. Articles by Treadwell, J. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance

Jonathan R. Treadwell, PhD

Background. In studies of health preferences, utilities for hypothetical health states cannot always be successfully measured. One marker for unsuccessful measurement is violation of "procedural invariance": when the ranking of two health states varies across assessment procedures. Using preference values based on unsuccessful mea surement may result in misinterpretation of patients' attitudes about health. Objective. The authors sought to determine whether people who violated procedural invariance had different preferences than people who satisfied it. Methods. They performed sec ondary analyses of three completed studies that used the same two assessment pro cedures, identifying participants who violated procedural invariance and comparing the mean standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores of violators and satisfiers. Participants. Experiment 1, 30 healthy volunteers and 30 patients with car diac arrhythmias; expenment 2, 139 patients with depressive illness; experiment 3, 98 family members of patients with schizophrenia. Results. Rates of violation of proce dural invariance ranged from 16% to 32%. Violation of procedural invariance was not associated with age, education level, race, or gender. Subjects with violations of pro cedural invariance had, in general, less ability to discriminate among states and less reliable VAS and SG measurements, and sometimes had different mean SG and VAS values. Conclusions. Violation of procedural invariance of preferences across scaling methods may be a signal for failure of the measurement process. Researchers should test for procedural invariance and consider reporting data separately for satisfiers and violators. Key words: utility; standard gamble; visual analog scale; cost-effectiveness analysis; decision analysis; computers; preferences. (Med Decis Making 1999;19: 473-481)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 4, 473-481 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900415


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. V. Dawson, M. E. Singer, L. Lenert, M. B. Patterson, S. A. Sami, I. Gonsenhouser, H. A. Lindstrom, K. A. Smyth, M. J. Barber, and P. J. Whitehouse Health State Valuation in Mild to Moderate Cognitive Impairment: Feasibility of Computer-Based, Direct Patient Utility Assessment Med Decis Making, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 220 - 232. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. R. Schackman, P. A. Teixeira, G. Weitzman, A. I. Mushlin, and I. M. Jacobson Quality-of-Life Tradeoffs for Hepatitis C Treatment: Do Patients and Providers Agree? Med Decis Making, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 233 - 242. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Bravata, L. M. Nelson, A. M. Garber, and M. K. Goldstein Invariance and Inconsistency in Utility Ratings Med Decis Making, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 158 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, A. Sturley, and M. Rupnow Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations Med Decis Making, January 1, 2003; 23(1): 67 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, A. Sturley, and M. E. Watson iMPACT3: Internet-Based Development and Administration of Utility Elicitation Protocols Med Decis Making, December 1, 2002; 22(6): 464 - 474. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Woloshin, L. M. Schwartz, M. Moncur, S. Gabriel, and A. N. A. Tosteson Assessing Values for Health: Numeracy Matters Med Decis Making, October 1, 2001; 21(5): 382 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, C. D. Sherbourne, and V. Reyna Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview Med Decis Making, April 1, 2001; 21(2): 97 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Merlino, I. Bagchi, T. N. Taylor, P. Utrie, E. Chrischilles, W. Sumner II, A. Mudano, and K. G. Saag Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Med Decis Making, April 1, 2001; 21(2): 122 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]