Literature DB >> 15090103

The validity of person tradeoff measurements: randomized trial of computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview.

Laura J Damschroder1, Jonathan Baron, John C Hershey, David A Asch, Christopher Jepson, Peter A Ubel.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15090103     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04263160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  7 in total

1.  Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task.

Authors:  Richard Norman; Madeleine T King; Dushyant Clarke; Rosalie Viney; Paula Cronin; Deborah Street
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  When are person tradeoffs valid?

Authors:  Jason N Doctor; John Miyamoto; Han Bleichrodt
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  A pilot Internet "value of health" panel: recruitment, participation and compliance.

Authors:  Ken Stein; Matthew Dyer; Tania Crabb; Ruairidh Milne; Alison Round; Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-11-27       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 4.  Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Paul A Scuffham; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Kalipso Chalkidou; Peter Littlejohns; Jennifer A Whitty
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Comparing internet and face-to-face surveys as methods for eliciting preferences for social care-related quality of life: evidence from England using the ASCOT service user measure.

Authors:  Eirini-Christina Saloniki; Juliette Malley; Peter Burge; Hui Lu; Laurie Batchelder; Ismo Linnosmaa; Birgit Trukeschitz; Julien Forder
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI.

Authors:  Brendan Mulhern; Louise Longworth; John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Nick Bansback; Nancy Devlin; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Anju Keetharuth; Aki Tsuchiya; Clara Mukuria
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.561

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.