The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation Versus Face-to-Face Interview

Can person tradeoff (PTO) value judgments be elicited by a computer, or is a face-to-face interview needed? The authors randomly assigned 95 subjects to interview or computer methods for the PTO, a valuation measure that is often difficult for subjects. They measured relative values of foot numbness, leg paralysis, and quadriplegia (all 3 pairs) at 2 reference group sizes (10 or 100). Relative values did not differ between computer and interview. Overall, 21% of responses were equality responses, 13% were high extreme values, and 5% violated ordinal criteria. The groups did not differ in these measures. The authors also assessed consistency across reference group size (10 v. 100). Although relative values were significantly lower for 100 than for 10, mode did not influence the size of this effect. Subjects made, on average, equally consistent judgments for the 3 comparisons. A computerized PTO elicitation protocol produced results of similar quality to that of a face-to-face interview.

[1]  D L Patrick,et al.  Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. , 1973, Health services research.

[2]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Using Electronic Mail for Data Collection in Organizational Research , 1986 .

[3]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[4]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[5]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  The range of response alternatives may determine the meaning of the question: Further evidence on informative functions of response alternatives. , 1988 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[7]  James G. Helgeson,et al.  The Decision Process Equivalency of Electronic Versus Pencil-and-Paper Data Collection Methods , 1989 .

[8]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Response scales as frames of reference: The impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgements , 1991 .

[9]  E. Nord.  The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. , 1993, Health policy.

[10]  J. Olsen.  Persons vs years: two ways of eliciting implicit weights. , 1994, Health economics.

[11]  E. Nord.  The Person-trade-off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  J. Baron.  Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions , 1997 .

[14]  J. L. Prades.  IS THE PERSON TRADE-OFF A VALID METHOD FOR ALLOCATING HEALTH CARE RESOURCES , 1997 .

[15]  J. Richardson,et al.  The importance of Perspective in the Measurement of Quality-adjusted Life Years , 1997, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  J L Pinto Prades,et al.  Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? , 1997, Health economics.

[17]  Leslie Lenert,et al.  Jamia Original Investigations Automated Computer Interviews to Elicit Utilities: Potential Applications in the Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis , 2022 .

[18]  M K Goldstein,et al.  Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. , 1997, Medical care.

[19]  Cam Donaldson,et al.  Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay , 1997 .

[20]  R. Soetikno,et al.  Quality-of-life research on the Internet: feasibility and potential biases in patients with ulcerative colitis. , 1997, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[21]  A Gafni,et al.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. , 1998, Health economics.

[22]  L. Lenert,et al.  The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  P. Dolan,et al.  Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. , 1998, Health economics.

[24]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations. , 1998, Health policy.

[25]  A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[26]  Stuart R. Lipsitz,et al.  Review of Software to Fit Generalized Estimating Equation Regression Models , 1999 .

[27]  P. Ubel,et al.  LIFE-SAVING TREATMENTS AND DISABILITIES , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  J. L. Pinto,et al.  Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. , 1999, Health economics.

[29]  P. Ubel,et al.  Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2000, Health economics.

[30]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  The Discrete-choice Willingness-to-pay Question Format in Health Economics: , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[31]  M. Couper.  A REVIEW OF ISSUES AND APPROACHES , 2000 .

[32]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[33]  J. Baron,et al.  Analog scale, magnitude estimation, and person trade-off as measures of health utility: biases and their correction , 2001 .

[34]  C. Green,et al.  On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? , 2001, Health economics.

[35]  Charles F. Turner,et al.  Using touch screen audio-CASI to obtain data on sensitive topics , 2001, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[36]  M. Couper,et al.  Web Surveys , 2001 .

[37]  L A Lenert,et al.  Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[38]  E. Collins,et al.  An Internet‐Based Utility Assessment of Breast Hypertrophy , 2001, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[39]  S. Sills,et al.  Innovations in Survey Research , 2002 .

[40]  S. Sills,et al.  Innovations in Survey Research , 2002 .

[41]  Mick P. Couper,et al.  Designing a Strategy for Reducing “No Opinion” Responses in Web-Based Surveys , 2002 .

[42]  D. Bangsberg,et al.  A computer-based assessment detects regimen misunderstandings and nonadherence for patients on HIV antiretroviral therapy , 2002, AIDS care.

[43]  J. Baron,et al.  Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments , 2002 .

[44]  David L. B. Schwappach,et al.  The equivalence of numbers: The social value of avoiding health decline: An experimental web-based study , 2002, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[45]  F. A. Pettit.  A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[46]  Jane Metrik,et al.  Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods? , 2002, Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors.

[47]  J. Baron,et al.  Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. , 2002, Health policy.

[48]  Stanley E. Kaufman,et al.  Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[49]  Automated utility assessment of global health , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[50]  Leslie A. Lenert,et al.  The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities , 2004, Quality of Life Research.