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 Google Scholar Articles by Lenert, L. A. Articles by Rupnow, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lenert, L. A. Articles by Rupnow, M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations

Ann Sturley, DrPH, BSN

Marcia Rupnow, PhD

This study examines the effects of use of an automated computer protocol to correct a common error in utility elicitations—namely, scoring of a health state with a greater impairment as being more desirable than one with lesser impairment. The authors studied the protocol in a sample of 563 members of the Internet-using public. Results revealed that errors were common (17% of ratings) but were typically successfully repaired (individuals who made only 1 or 2 errors had a 75% chance of repairing them). The values of individuals who repaired errors were similar to those without apparent error. In contrast, individuals who refused to repair errors had lower scores for the best health state in the series and higher ones for the worst health state. Results suggest that the repair procedures were successful and that inclusion of utility scores from individuals who fail to repair illogically ordered ratings may bias estimates of mean utilities.

Key Words: cost-effectiveness analysis • utility theory • patient preferences • standard gamble • ratings scale

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Prosser, J. A. Ladapo, D. Rusinak, and S. E. Waisbren Parental Tolerance of False-positive Newborn Screening Results Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, September 1, 2008; 162(9): 870 - 876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. N. Doctor, J. G. Baseman, W. B. Lober, J. Davies, J. Kobayashi, B. T. Karras, and S. Fuller Time-Tradeoff Utilities for Identifying and Evaluating a Minimum Data Set for Time-Critical Biosurveillance Med Decis Making, June 1, 2008; 28(3): 351 - 358. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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, April 1, 2008; 28(2): 220 - 232. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. L. Nelson, P. K. J. Han, A. Fagerlin, M. Stefanek, and P. A. Ubel Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 609 - 618. [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]

				E. B. Elkin, M. E. Cowen, D. Cahill, M. Steffel, and M. W. Kattan Preference Assessment Method Affects Decision-Analytic Recommendations: A Prostate Cancer Treatment Example Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 504 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF]