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

Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview

Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the University of California, San Diego

Cathy D. Sherbourne, PhD

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California and University of Arizona, Tucson

Valerie Reyna, PhD

Background. The use of a simpler procedure for the measurement of utilities could affect primarily the variance or both the mean and the variance of measurements. In the former case, simpler methods would be useful for population studies of preferences; however, in the latter, their use for such studies might be problematic. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of utility elicitation using single-item questions to computer elicitation using the Ping-Pong search procedure. Methods. In a convenience sample of 149 primary care patients with symptoms of depression, the authors measured and compared standard gamble (SG) utilities elicited using a single-item "open question" to SG elicitations performed using a computerized interview procedure. Elicitations were performed 1 to 2 weeks apart to minimize memory effects. Results. More than 90% of persons with utilities of 1.0 to the single-item standard gamble had utilities of less than 1.0 on the computer SG instrument. Consistent with this finding, the mean utilities were lower in computer interviews (0.80 vs. 0.90; P< 0.0001 for differences). Within subjects, utility measures had only a fair degree of correlation (r= 0.54). Conclusions. Use of single-item questions to elicit utilities resulted in less precise estimates of utilities that were upwardly biased relative to those elicited using a more complex search procedure.

Key Words: computers • utility • health survey/questionnaires • data collection/questionnaires

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 21, No. 2, 97-104 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100202


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. F. Reyna Theories of Medical Decision Making and Health: An Evidence-Based Approach Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 829 - 833. [PDF]

				L. J. Damschroder, J. Baron, J. C. Hershey, D. A. Asch, C. Jepson, and P. A. Ubel The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation Versus Face-to-Face Interview Med Decis Making, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 170 - 180. [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]

				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]