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 Stalmeier, P. F. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stalmeier, P. F. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments

Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information, Nijmegen; the Joint Center for Radiation Oncology Arnhem-Nijmegen, University Medical Center Nijmegen; and Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam

Background. Classic utility assessment uses death and perfect health as end points. Chained utility assessment uses other health states as end points. It has been previously noted that these 2 assessment procedures lead to different utilities.Purpose. The author attempts to explain these discrepancies between chained and classic assessments. Method. Previous data are plotted in a uniform way to facilitate comparison. Using time trade-off and paired-comparison data, the author estimates the extent to which respondents adjust their responses when end points are varied. Data were obtained in various samples: in healthy volunteers from the general public, in students, and in women at high risk for breast cancer seeking genetic counseling. Results. The author obtained 741 valid data records from a total of 106 participants. The data replicate the pattern found previously. When compared to classic utilities, (1) chained utilities are smaller (larger) when the best (worst) end point varies and (2) the discrepancies become smaller for utilities near 0 and 1. The data reveal that there is a distinct failure to adjust responses when the end points are varied, as if the responses anchor on some master health scale. The latter finding explains the robust pattern of discrepancies. Conclusion. Decision analyses that use a mix of classic and chained utilities are not on firm ground. One should be wary of normative interpretations of new value assessment procedures. Alternative interpretations of the findings are discussed.

Key Words: utility assessment • cognitive bias • decision analysis • time trade-off

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 22, No. 1, 53-64 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200105


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Khanna, R. M. Kaplan, M. H. Eckman, R. D. Hays, A. C. Leonard, S. S. Ginsburg, and J. Tsevat A Randomized Study of Scleroderma Health State Values: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, and Quite a Few Utilities Med Decis Making, January 1, 2009; 29(1): 7 - 14. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Secnik, L. S. Matza, S. Cottrell, E. Edgell, D. Tilden, and S. Mannix Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom Med Decis Making, January 1, 2005; 25(1): 56 - 70. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Locadia, P. F. M. Stalmeier, F. J. Oort, M. H. Prins, M. A. G. Sprangers, and P. M. M. Bossuyt A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants Med Decis Making, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 625 - 633. [Abstract] [PDF]