Literature DB >> 17031501

Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales.

Paul F M Krabbe1, Peep F M Stalmeier, Leida M Lamers, Jan J V Busschbach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conditions were studied that may invalidate health-state values derived from the visual analogue scale (VAS).
METHODS: Respondents were asked to place cards with descriptions of EQ-5D health states on a 20 cm EuroQol VAS and modified versions of it, positioning them such that the distances between the states reflect their valuation for these states. Anchor-point bias was examined using the standard EuroQol VAS (n = 212) and a modified version (n = 97) with a different lower anchor. Context bias was examined in another group of respondents (n = 112) who valued three different sets of EQ-5D health states. Marker bias was studied in yet another group of respondents (n = 100) who placed the same EQ-5D states on the standard EuroQol VAS and on a modified VAS without anchors, categories, or measurement markers.
RESULTS: No indication for the existence of the anchor-point and the marker bias was found. However, the VAS valuations were significantly affected by the context of the set of health states in the scaling task.
CONCLUSION: Advanced methodologies should be incorporated in VAS valuation studies to deal with the context bias.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17031501     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-0027-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  25 in total

1.  Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?

Authors:  G W Torrance; D Feeny; W Furlong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  On the psychophysical law.

Authors:  S S STEVENS
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1957-05       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations.

Authors:  Joshua A Salomon; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?

Authors:  David Parkin; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods.

Authors:  P F Krabbe; M L Essink-Bot; G J Bonsel
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations.

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; M Johannesson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation.

Authors:  A Parducci; D H Wedell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Toward an operational definition of health.

Authors:  D L Patrick; J W Bush; M M Chen
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1973-03

9.  Qualms about QALYs.

Authors:  A Smith
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-05-16       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  10 in total

1.  Including information about co-morbidity in estimates of disease burden: results from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys.

Authors:  J Alonso; G Vilagut; S Chatterji; S Heeringa; M Schoenbaum; T Bedirhan Üstün; S Rojas-Farreras; M Angermeyer; E Bromet; R Bruffaerts; G de Girolamo; O Gureje; J M Haro; A N Karam; V Kovess; D Levinson; Z Liu; M E Medina-Mora; J Ormel; J Posada-Villa; H Uda; R C Kessler
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 7.723

2.  Comorbidity and disease burden in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).

Authors:  Anne M Gadermann; Jordi Alonso; Gemma Vilagut; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 6.505

3.  Reference bias: presentation of extreme health states prior to EQ-VAS improves health-related quality of life scores. a randomised cross-over trial.

Authors:  Steven McPhail; Elaine Beller; Terry Haines
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-12-02       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Are patients' judgments of health status really different from the general population?

Authors:  Paul Fm Krabbe; Noor Tromp; Theo Jm Ruers; Piet Lcm van Riel
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale.

Authors:  Paul F M Krabbe; Elly A Stolk; Nancy J Devlin; Feng Xie; Elise H Quik; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-11-02

6.  Temporal binding of social events less pronounced in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  David H V Vogel; Mathis Jording; Carolin Esser; Amelie Conrad; Peter H Weiss; Kai Vogeley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan Jv Busschbach
Journal:  Popul Health Metr       Date:  2009-01-13

8.  Quantification of health by scaling similarity judgments.

Authors:  Alexander M M Arons; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model.

Authors:  Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury: deriving value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS for Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom.

Authors:  Daphne C Voormolen; Suzanne Polinder; Nicole von Steinbuechel; Yan Feng; Lindsay Wilson; Mark Oppe; Juanita A Haagsma
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 4.147

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.