Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
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 < 0.0001 for differences). Within subjects, utility measures had only a fair degree of correlation (r= 0.54).
Conclusions: Use of single-item questions to elicit utilities resulted in less precise estimates of utilities that were upwardly biased relative to those elicited using a more complex search procedure.
Reprinted with permission from Medical Decision Making, Vol. 21, No. 2, March-April 2001, pp. 97-104. Copyright © 2001 Society for Medical Decision Making.
Originally published in: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 21, No. 2, March-April 2001, pp. 97-104.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.