IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i2p97-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie A. Lenert

    (Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the University of California, San Diego)

  • Cathy D. Sherbourne

    (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California and University of Arizona, Tucson)

  • Valerie Reyna

Abstract

Background . The use of a simpler procedure for the measurement of utilities could affect primarily the variance or both the mean and the variance of measurements. In the former case, simpler methods would be useful for population studies of preferences; however, in the latter, their use for such studies might be problematic. Purpose . The purpose of this study was to compare the results of utility elicitation using single-item questions to computer elicitation using the Ping-Pong search procedure. Methods . In a convenience sample of 149 primary care patients with symptoms of depression, the authors measured and compared standard gamble (SG) utilities elicited using a single-item “open question†to SG elicitations performed using a computerized interview procedure. Elicitations were performed 1 to 2 weeks apart to minimize memory effects. Results . More than 90% of persons with utilities of 1.0 to the single-item standard gamble had utilities of less than 1.0 on the computer SG instrument. Consistent with this finding, the mean utilities were lower in computer interviews (0.80 vs. 0.90; P

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie A. Lenert & Cathy D. Sherbourne & Valerie Reyna, 2001. "Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 97-104, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:97-104
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100202?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto Prades, 2009. "New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 713-726, June.

    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:2:p:97-104. 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: 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.