IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i1p17-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Robinson

    (Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom)

  • Graham Loomes

    (Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom)

  • Michael Jones-Lee

    (Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Background . It has been argued that visual analog scales (VASs) elicit an individual’s measurable value function. The theoretical link between an individual’s measurable value function v(.) and his or her von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function u(.) appears to provide a justification for transforming VAS scores into standard gamble (SG) utilities. However, VAS scores have been found to be subject to the effects of context, which casts doubt that the procedure is properly revealing v(.). Methods . The authors tested for the effects of context on VAS and SG scores. They also explored whether the range-frequency (R-F) model of Parducci offers a means of correcting VAS scores for the effects of context. Results and conclusions . The R-F model may provide a means of correcting VAS scores for the effects of context, but no stable relationship exists between these corrected scores and SG utilities. Hence, there remain no grounds for transforming VAS scores into SG utilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Robinson & Graham Loomes & Michael Jones-Lee, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 17-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:1:p:17-27
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100103?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. Imran S. Currim & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1984. "A Comparative Evaluation of Multiattribute Consumer Preference Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 543-561, May.
    2. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    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. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    2. Lampe, Immanuel & Würtenberger, Daniel, 2020. "Loss aversion and the demand for index insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 678-693.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    4. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    5. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    6. Amir Shmueli & David Messika & Havi Murad & Laurence Freedman, 2008. "Does greater exposure to own-health data make a difference on the visual analog scale?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 63-67, February.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    8. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Peter P. Wakker & Wilbert B. van den Hout & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2004. "Correcting Biases in Standard Gamble and Time Tradeoff Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 511-517, October.
    9. Lisbet S. Lundsberg & Eleanor B. Schwarz & Nicole A. Vilardo & Kimberly A. Yonkers & Aileen M. Gariepy, 2018. "Clinical Validation of PROMIS Global Short Form in Pregnancy," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(1), pages 89-103, March.
    10. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2012. "When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 569-584, April.
    11. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    12. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    13. Oliver, Adam, 2006. "Further evidence of preference reversals: Choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 803-820, September.
    14. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2020. "What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1475-1481, November.
    15. Shin, Soye & Magnan, Nicholas & Mullally, Conner & Janzen, Sarah, 2022. "Demand for Weather Index Insurance among Smallholder Farmers under Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 82-104.
    16. 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.
    17. Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Maria & Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, 2009. "The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1039-1047, December.
    18. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    19. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    20. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
    21. Ian Bateman & Brett Day & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2007. "Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 49-66, February.
    22. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.

    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. Louis Eeckhoudt & Elisa Pagani & Eugenio Peluso, 2023. "Multidimensional risk aversion: the cardinal sin," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 15-31, January.
    2. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    3. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex, 1995. "Time preference, duration and health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 289-299, July.
    5. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    6. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    7. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    8. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.
    9. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Lena Lundberg & Magnus Johannesson & Dag G.L. Isacson & Lars Borgquist, 1999. "The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-140, April.
    11. Zeynep Erkin & Matthew D. Bailey & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Eliciting Patients' Revealed Preferences: An Inverse Markov Decision Process Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 358-365, December.
    12. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    13. Holger J. Schünemann & Lauren Griffith & David Stubbing & Roger Goldstein & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2003. "A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Measurement Properties of 2 Direct Preference Instruments Administered with and without Hypothetical Marker States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 140-149, March.
    14. A. David Paltiel & Kenneth A. Freedberg, 1998. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing Cytomegalovirus Disease in AIDS Patients," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 34-51, June.
    15. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    16. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & Elaine C. Thiel & M. June McGreal, 1992. "Cancer Patients' Evaluations of Their Current Health State," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(2), pages 115-122, June.
    17. Donald A. Redelmeier & Daniel N. Heller, 1993. "Time Preference in Medical Decision Making and Cost - Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(3), pages 212-217, August.
    18. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Michael Paterson & Judy A. Carter & Antoni Basinski & Martin G. Myers & Gordon D. Hardacre & Earl V. Dunn & Ralph B. D’Agostino & Philip A. Wolf & C. David Naylor, 2002. "Primary Prevention Drug Therapy: Can It Meet Patients’ Requirements for Reduced Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 326-339, August.
    19. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    20. Heather J. Sutherland & Virginia Dunn & Norman F. Boyd, 1983. "Measurement of Values for States of Health with Linear Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(4), pages 477-487, December.

    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:21:y:2001:i:1:p:17-27. 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.