IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i6p480-488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Littenberg
  • Steven Partilo
  • Anita Licata
  • Michael W. Kattan

Abstract

Background. Quality of life is often best estimated by standard gamble techniques. However, these techniques usually require time-consuming and expensive interviews or computerdirected questionnaires. Paper Standard Gamble (PSG) is a paper questionnaire that has previously been shown to accurately represent standard gambles elicited by computer. The authors sought to demonstrate its test-retest reliability in comparison to other, paper-based measures of quality of life. Methods. The authors used a longitudinal cohort designwith duplicate assessments of quality of life by PSG, the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and the Mental and Physical Component Summary scores of the SF-12 in stable dermatology outpatients. Baseline measures were performed by mail 1 to 2 weeks before a scheduled dermatology clinic visit. Follow-up measures were performed in the waiting room before being seen by the dermatologist. The authors calculated the coefficient of variation and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for each of the instruments. Results.74 patientswith stable skin conditions participated. The coefficient of variation of PSG (0.47%) was smaller than the other instruments (4.26%–5.22%); PSG’scorrelation washigher (0.97 v. 0.65–0.80). Conclusion. PSG, a 1-page paper questionnaire, is a reliable measure of patient utility suitable for use in postal surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Littenberg & Steven Partilo & Anita Licata & Michael W. Kattan, 2003. "Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(6), pages 480-488, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:480-488
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03259817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03259817
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03259817?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. Lyne Lalonde & Ann E. Clarke & Lawrence Joseph & Steven A. Grover, 1999. "Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 149-156, April.
    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. Edward Wilson, 2010. "Cost Effectiveness of Imiquimod 5% Cream Compared with Methyl Aminolevulinate-Based Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Hyperkeratotic, Non-Hypertrophic Actinic (Solar) Keratoses A Decision T," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 1055-1064, November.
    2. Elif Incekara-Hafalir & Eungsik Kim & Jack D. Stecher, 2021. "Is the Allais paradox due to appeal of certainty or aversion to zero?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 751-771, September.

    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. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    2. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.

    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:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:480-488. 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.