IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v8y1999i1p41-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics

Author

Listed:
  • John Brazier
  • Mark Deverill

Abstract

There have been a number of published reviews of measures of health related quality of life, but most of this work has been undertaken within a tradition of psychometrics outside of economics. This situation has often resulted in health status measures designed specifically for the purposes of economic evaluation being neglected and portrayed as ‘invalid’. This paper utilizes and adapts the traditional psychometric concepts of practicality, reliability and validity for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life. The psychometric and economic approaches are most different in relation to validity because they are seeking to measure different concepts. The former seeks to measure health change as perceived by patients, whilst economic evaluation requires a measure of the value or strength of preference for the health change. A checklist is presented to provide guidance in the design or review of economic evaluations using changes in health as the main measure of benefit.Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:41-51
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::AID-HEC395>3.0.CO;2-#
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:13.0.CO;2-#
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::AID-HEC395>3.0.CO;2-#?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. George W. Torrance & Michael H. Boyle & Sargent P. Horwood, 1982. "Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1043-1069, December.
    2. Alan Williams, 1995. "The role of the Euroqol instrument in QALY calculations," Working Papers 130chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
    4. Culyer, A J, 1971. "The Nature of the Commodity 'Health Care' and Its Efficient Allocation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 189-211, July.
    5. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    6. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    7. Buckingham, Ken, 1993. "A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent)," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 301-309, October.
    8. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1995. "Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: An economic approach to addressing economic problems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 767-776, March.
    9. Loomes, Graham, 1995. "The myth of the HYE," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-7, May.
    10. Lauraine G. Chestnut & L. Robin Keller & William E. Lambert & Robert D. Rowe, 1996. "Measuring Heart Patients' Willingness to Pay for Changes in Angina Symptoms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 65-76, February.
    11. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    12. Richard Smith & Matthew Dobson, 1993. "Measuring utility values for QALYs: Two methodological issues," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(4), pages 349-355, December.
    13. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1993. "Searching for a common currency: Critical appraisal of the scientific basis underlying European harmonization of the measurement of health related quality of life (EuroQol(c))," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 219-228, March.
    14. Donaldson, Cam & Atkinson, Ann & Bond, John & Wright, Ken, 1988. "Should QALYs be programme-specific?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 239-257, September.
    15. Hall, Jane & Gerard, Karen & Salkeld, Glenn & Richardson, Jeff, 1992. "A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 993-1004, May.
    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. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    2. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    4. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1997. "QALYs and HYEs Spotting the differences," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 601-608, October.
    5. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    6. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    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. Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto, Jose Luis & Maria Abellan-Perpinan, Jose, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1037-1052, November.
    9. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2022. "Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 277-299, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Leida M. Lamers & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2005. "The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 679-685, July.
    14. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    15. Bleichrodt, Han & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 155-175, April.
    16. Ried, Walter, 1998. "QALYs versus HYEs--what's right and what's wrong. A review of the controversy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 607-625, October.
    17. Ried, Walter, 1996. "QALYs versus HYEs - What's Right and What's Wrong," Discussion Papers 544, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
    18. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    20. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:41-51. 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.