Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

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 Nickerson, C. A.E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nickerson, C. A.E.
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?

Other

Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods

Carol A.E. Nickerson, PhD

A number of empirical studies have attempted to assess the convergent validity of health-state utilities obtained using two or more scaling methods (standard gamble, time tradeoff, rating scale, magnitude estimation, equivalence technique, and willing ness-to-pay). The data from these studies can be mapped onto an N x K matrix, where N and K are the numbers of respondents and health states, respectively, and each matrix cell consists of a pair of health-state utilities, one obtained using scaling method X and the other obtained using scaling method Y. The Pearson's r assessing convergent validity can then be computed as 1) the unraveled correlation over all N x K data pairs, 2) the mean within-respondent correlation, 3) the mean within-health- state correlation, or 4) the correlation of the across-respondents means. These four different ways of computing the correlation do not necessarily yield the same results. The appropriateness of each method of computing the correlation is considered. Key words: convergent validity; equivalence technique; health-state preferences; health- state utilities; magnitude estimation; person tradeoff; rating scale; scaling; standard gamble; time tradeoff; willingness-to-pay. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:487-496)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 4, 487-498 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900417
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
J. N. Doctor, H. Bleichrodt, and H. J. Lin
Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2010; 30(1): 58 - 67.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
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]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
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]