IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i4p473-481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie A. Lenert
  • Jonathan R. Treadwell

Abstract

Background. In studies of health preferences, utilities for hypothetical health states cannot always be successfully measured. One marker for unsuccessful measurement is violation of "procedural invariance": when the ranking of two health states varies across assessment procedures. Using preference values based on unsuccessful mea surement may result in misinterpretation of patients' attitudes about health. Objective. The authors sought to determine whether people who violated procedural invariance had different preferences than people who satisfied it. Methods. They performed sec ondary analyses of three completed studies that used the same two assessment pro cedures, identifying participants who violated procedural invariance and comparing the mean standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores of violators and satisfiers. Participants. Experiment 1, 30 healthy volunteers and 30 patients with car diac arrhythmias; expenment 2, 139 patients with depressive illness; experiment 3, 98 family members of patients with schizophrenia. Results. Rates of violation of proce dural invariance ranged from 16% to 32%. Violation of procedural invariance was not associated with age, education level, race, or gender. Subjects with violations of pro cedural invariance had, in general, less ability to discriminate among states and less reliable VAS and SG measurements, and sometimes had different mean SG and VAS values. Conclusions. Violation of procedural invariance of preferences across scaling methods may be a signal for failure of the measurement process. Researchers should test for procedural invariance and consider reporting data separately for satisfiers and violators. Key words: utility; standard gamble; visual analog scale; cost-effectiveness analysis; decision analysis; computers; preferences. (Med Decis Making 1999;19: 473-481)

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie A. Lenert & Jonathan R. Treadwell, 1999. "Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 473-481, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:473-481
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900415
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900415?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. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    2. Robert F. Nease JR, 1996. "Do Violations of the Axioms of Expected Utility Theory Threaten Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(4), pages 399-403, October.
    3. Mary Kane Goldstein & Ann E. Clarke & David Michelson & Alan M. Garber & Merlynn R. Bergen & Leslie A. Lenert, 1994. "Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 336-344, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    2. Ashwani Monga & Frank May & Rajesh Bagchi & Gita JoharEditor & Zeynep Gürhan-CanliAssociate Editor, 2017. "Eliciting Time versus Money: Time Scarcity Underlies Asymmetric Wage Rates," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 833-852.

    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. Katherine J. Stevens & Christopher J. McCabe & John E. Brazier, 2006. "Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 527-533, May.
    2. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    3. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    4. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    5. Leslie A. Lenert & Daniel J. Cher & Mary K. Goldstein & Merlynn R. Bergen & Alan Garber, 1998. "The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-83, January.
    6. George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Paul Ritvo & Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn, 2012. "Development and Validation of a Utility Weighting Function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 11-30, January.
    7. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    8. Katherine Stevens & Christopher McCabe & John Brazier, 2007. "Response to Shmueli," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 759-761, July.
    9. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    10. Johanna L. Bosch & James K. Hammitt & Milton C. Weinstein & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1998. "Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 381-390, October.
    11. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    12. Lukasz Mateusz Falkhamn & Gunilla Stenberg & Paul Enthoven & Britt-Marie Stålnacke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Primary Care—A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    14. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    15. Sloan, Frank A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Chesson, Harrell W. & Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn, 1998. "Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis1," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 475-497, August.
    16. Carol A.E. Nickerson, 1999. "Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 487-498, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:473-481. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.