IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0248805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An extended hierarchical ordered probit model robust to heteroskedastic vignette perceptions with an application to functional limitation assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Zhiyong Huang
  • Haoxian Wang
  • Wenyuan Zheng

Abstract

To improve interpersonal comparability of self-reported measures, anchoring vignettes are increasingly collected in surveys and modeled as the hierarchical ordered probit (HOPIT) model. This paper—based on the idea of psychological distance—relaxes the assumption of vignette equivalence in the HOPIT by allowing for heteroscedasticity in respondents’ perceptions of vignettes. Particularly, we assume that respondents who are more similar to a vignette are more familiar with the condition described and therefore are capable of forming a more precise perception of the vignette. We show evidence in favor of this extended HOPIT through Monte Carlo simulations and an application concerning self-reported vision difficulty from the WHO Study on Global Aging and Adult Health (SAGE).

Suggested Citation

  • Zhiyong Huang & Haoxian Wang & Wenyuan Zheng, 2021. "An extended hierarchical ordered probit model robust to heteroskedastic vignette perceptions with an application to functional limitation assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0248805
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248805
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248805&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0248805?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith & Arthur van Soest, 2007. "Vignettes and Self-Reports of Work Disability in the United States and the Netherlands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 461-473, March.
    2. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:01:p:191-207_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Viola Angelini & Danilo Cavapozzi & Luca Corazzini & Omar Paccagnella, 2014. "Do Danes and Italians Rate Life Satisfaction in the Same Way? Using Vignettes to Correct for Individual-Specific Scale Biases," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 76(5), pages 643-666, October.
    4. Shmueli, Amir, 2003. "Socio-economic and demographic variation in health and in its measures: the issue of reporting heterogeneity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 125-134, July.
    5. Lindeboom, Maarten & van Doorslaer, Eddy, 2004. "Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1083-1099, November.
    6. Eric Bonsang & Arthur Soest, 2012. "Satisfaction with Job and Income Among Older Individuals Across European Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 227-254, January.
    7. Kristensen, Nicolai & Johansson, Edvard, 2008. "New evidence on cross-country differences in job satisfaction using anchoring vignettes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 96-117, February.
    8. Hana Voňková & Patrick Hullegie, 2011. "Is the anchoring vignette method sensitive to the domain and choice of the vignette?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 597-620, July.
    9. Martin Ravallion & Kristen Himelein & Kathleen Beegle, 2016. "Can Subjective Questions on Economic Welfare Be Trusted?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 697-726.
    10. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 623-637, March.
    11. King, Gary & Wand, Jonathan, 2007. "Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 46-66, January.
    12. Arthur van Soest & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon & Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith, 2011. "Validating the use of anchoring vignettes for the correction of response scale differences in subjective questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 575-595, July.
    13. Teresa Molina, 2016. "Reporting Heterogeneity and Health Disparities Across Gender and Education Levels: Evidence From Four Countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(2), pages 295-323, April.
    14. Ren Mu, 2014. "Regional Disparities In Self‐Reported Health: Evidence From Chinese Older Adults," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 529-549, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franco Peracchi & Claudio Rossetti, 2013. "The heterogeneous thresholds ordered response model: identification and inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 703-722, June.
    2. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    3. Raskina, Yulia & Podkorytova, Olga & Kuchakov, Ruslan, 2022. "Health determinants and the reporting heterogeneity bias in Russia: Anchoring vignettes approach," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 66, pages 118-143.
    4. Bertoni, Marco, 2015. "Hungry today, unhappy tomorrow? Childhood hunger and subjective wellbeing later in life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 40-53.
    5. Teresa Bago d’Uva & Maarten Lindeboom & Owen O’Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2011. "Slipping Anchor?: Testing the Vignettes Approach to Identification and Correction of Reporting Heterogeneity," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 46(4), pages 875-906.
    6. Laura Rossouw & Teresa Bago d’Uva & Eddy Doorslaer, 2018. "Poor Health Reporting? Using Anchoring Vignettes to Uncover Health Disparities by Wealth and Race," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(5), pages 1935-1956, October.
    7. Molina, Teresa, 2017. "Adjusting for heterogeneous response thresholds in cross-country comparisons of self-reported health," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 1-20.
    8. Montgomery, Mallory, 2022. "Reversing the gender gap in happiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 65-78.
    9. Hana Vonkova, 2019. "Life Satisfaction among Different Groups of Children: Self-Reports, Differential Scale Usage and Anchoring Vignettes," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(6), pages 2111-2136, December.
    10. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    11. Kapteyn, Arie & Wah, Saw Htay, 2016. "Challenges to small and medium-size businesses in Myanmar: What are they and how do we know?," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-22.
    12. Fontaine, Xavier & Haywood, Luke, 2018. "On the comparison of group inequalities using subjective data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 17-21.
    13. Rachel J. Knott & Nicole Black & Bruce Hollingsworth & Paula K. Lorgelly, 2017. "Response‐Scale Heterogeneity in the EQ‐5D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 387-394, March.
    14. Kaiser, Caspar, 2022. "Using memories to assess the intrapersonal comparability of wellbeing reports," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 410-442.
    15. Laura Rossouw & Teresa Bago d'Uva & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2017. "Poor Health Reporting? Using Vignettes to Recover the Health Gradient by Wealth," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-031/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Franco Peracchi & Claudio Rossetti, 2012. "Heterogeneity in health responses and anchoring vignettes," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 513-538, April.
    17. Arthur van Soest & Hana Vonkova, 2014. "Testing the specification of parametric models by using anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(1), pages 115-133, January.
    18. Greene, William & Harris, Mark N. & Knott, Rachel & Rice, Nigel, 2023. "Reporting heterogeneity in modeling self-assessed survey outcomes," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    19. Omar Paccagnella, 2011. "Anchoring vignettes with sample selection due to non‐response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 665-687, July.
    20. Laura Rossouw, 2015. "Poor health reporting: Do poor South Africans underestimate their health needs?," WIDER Working Paper Series 027, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0248805. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.