IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i12p1413-1416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure

Author

Listed:
  • Jenkinson, Crispin

Abstract

There is currently much interest in the measurement of self reported health status. A number of health status measures have been designed. However, such questionnaires are often long and complicated, or are disease specific. The most famous generic British health status instrument is the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) which is a short questionnaire designed for ease of completion. However, this paper addresses a number of related issues concerning the weights attached to particular items on this questionnaire. It is argued that the weighting of items by Thurstone's method of paired comparisons is inappropriate and can lead to logically inconsistent results.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenkinson, Crispin, 1991. "Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 1413-1416, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:12:p:1413-1416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90202-N
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caitlyn T. Wilke & A. Simon Pickard & Surrey M. Walton & Joern Moock & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee, 2010. "Statistical implications of utility weighted and equally weighted HRQL measures: an empirical study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 101-110, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:12:p:1413-1416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.