IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v16y2007i7p755-758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It might be premature to reject the assumption of a power curve relationship between VAS and SG data: three comments on Stevens, McCabe and Brazier's ‘Mapping between VAS and SG data; results from the UK HUI Index 2 valuation survey’*

* This paper is a replication of an original study

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Shmueli

Abstract

In a recent paper in Health Economics, Stevens, McCabe and Brazier (Health Econ. 2006; 15: 527–533.) found that the cubic relationship between Visual Analog Scale (VAS) values and standard gamble (SG) utilities was superior to other functional forms in terms of explanatory power and predictive ability. Consequently, they question the reliance on the assumption of a power curve relationship, which was established, theoretically and empirically, in earlier works. This note argues that: (1) SMB's conclusions are incorrect. The estimated cubic function overfits the four data points, and is questionable with respect to the implied attitude toward relative risk. (2) The evaluation of the functional forms in terms of the individual predictions' mean absolute error is misleading and (3) correcting for heteroscedasticity improves the precision of the estimates and of the predictions. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Shmueli, 2007. "It might be premature to reject the assumption of a power curve relationship between VAS and SG data: three comments on Stevens, McCabe and Brazier's ‘Mapping between VAS and SG data; results from the," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 755-758, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:7:p:755-758
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1188
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1188?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. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
    2. G Torrance & Y Zhang & D Feeny & W Furlong & R Barr, 1992. "Multi-attribute Utility Functions for a Comprehensive Health Status Classification System: Health Utilities Index Mark 2," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1992-18, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    4. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Lee, Jonq-Ying & Rampersaud, Gail S. & Brown, Mark G., 2008. "An Index to Measure Health Status," Research papers 36819, Florida Department of Citrus.
    6. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    7. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    9. Fleisher, Beverly, 1988. "Intrinsic Risk Attitude: Separating Attitude Towards Risk from Preferences for Goods," 1988 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Knoxville, Tennessee 270154, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. 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.
    11. Tzeyu L. Michaud & Robert L. Kane & J. Riley McCarten & Joseph E. Gaugler & John A. Nyman & Karen M. Kuntz, 2018. "Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 309-323, September.
    12. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    13. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    14. Laura Orobia & Gerrit Rooks, 2011. "Risk Taking and Start-up Capital: Exploring Gender differences in Uganda, through an International Comparison," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 3(2), pages 83-93.
    15. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    16. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    17. Lisa R. Ulrich & Juliana J. Petersen & Karola Mergenthal & Andrea Berghold & Gudrun Pregartner & Rolf Holle & Andrea Siebenhofer, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care – results from the PICANT trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Loomes, Graham, 1995. "The myth of the HYE," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-7, May.
    19. Ali E. Abbas, 2011. "Decomposing the Cross Derivatives of a Multiattribute Utility Function into Risk Attitude and Value," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 103-116, June.
    20. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.

    Replication

    This item is a replication of:
  • 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.

    • 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:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:7:p:755-758. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.