An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale Valuations

A major advantage of using a rating scale in health-utility measurement is its practical applicability: the method is relatively easy to understand, and various health states can be assessed simultaneously. However, a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations has not been established. The primary aim of this paper is to present a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations based on the theory of measurable value functions and to provide a consistency test to see whether rating-scale valuations do indeed elicit a measurable value function. If rating-scale valuations elicit a measurable value function, then Dyer and Sarin have shown how they are related to von Neumann-Morgenstern (vNM) utilities. The appropriate technique to measure vNM utilities is the standard gamble. Torrance has suggested that rating-scale valuations and standard-gamble valuations are related by a power function. A secondary aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between rating-scale valuations and standard-gamble valuations hypothesized by Torrance. An experiment was designed to test consistency of rating-scale valuations and the relationship between rating-scale valuations and standard-gamble valuations. The experiment tested whether rating-scale valuations are independent of the context in which they are elicited, as they should be if they elicit points on a measurable value function. 80 Swedish and 92 Dutch respondents participated in the experiment. The results showed that rating-scale valuations depend on the number of preferred alternatives in the task and thus violate a basic property of measurable value functions. The estimation of the power function did not result in stable results: parameter estimates varied, in some cases there was indication of misspecification, and in most cases there was indication of heteroskedastic errors. The implications of these findings for the common use of rating-scale valuations in cost-utility analysis are serious: the dependency of the rating-scale valuations on the other health states included in the task casts serious doubts on the validity of the rating-scale method. Key words: QALYs; rating scale; cost-utility analysis; medical decision making. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:208-216))

[1]  Leslie Godfrey,et al.  Testing for multiplicative heteroskedasticity , 1978 .

[2]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions , 1979, Oper. Res..

[3]  J. Richardson,et al.  Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[4]  D. Feeny,et al.  Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  Jaap Van Brakel,et al.  Foundations of measurement , 1983 .

[6]  D A Redelmeier,et al.  Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern , 1989 .

[8]  D. Ellsberg Classic and Current Notions of “Measurable Utility” , 1954 .

[9]  T. Breurch,et al.  A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation (econometrica vol 47 , 1979 .

[10]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[11]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or fibromyalgia. , 1994, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  K. Arrow Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations , 1951 .

[13]  N. Anderson Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[14]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Methodologic challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory. An Analysis of Decision Making Under Risk , 1977 .

[17]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Preferences for Health Outcomes , 1984, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  Rakesh Kumar Sarin,et al.  Strength of Preference and Risky Choice , 1982, Oper. Res..

[19]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  RELATIVE RISK AVERSION. , 1982 .

[20]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States , 1982, Oper. Res..

[21]  J. MacKinnon,et al.  Estimation and inference in econometrics , 1994 .

[22]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Patient utilities in fibromyalgia and the association with other outcome measures. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent? , 1985 .

[24]  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.

[25]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques , 1976 .

[26]  R M Kaplan,et al.  Do Category Rating Scales Produce Biased Preference Weights for a Health Index? , 1983, Medical care.

[27]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .