Literature DB >> 1871612

Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure.

C Jenkinson1.   

Abstract

There is currently much interest in the measurement of self reported health status. A number of health status measures have been designed. However, such questionnaires are often long and complicated, or are disease specific. The most famous generic British health status instrument is the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) which is a short questionnaire designed for ease of completion. However, this paper addresses a number of related issues concerning the weights attached to particular items on this questionnaire. It is argued that the weighting of items by Thurstone's method of paired comparisons is inappropriate and can lead to logically inconsistent results.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1871612     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90202-n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  11 in total

Review 1.  A review of the progress towards developing health-related quality-of-life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research.

Authors:  R T Anderson; N K Aaronson; M Bullinger; W L McBee
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference?

Authors:  I-Chan Huang; Richard J Willke; Mark J Atkinson; William R Lenderking; Constantine Frangakis; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Social position modifies the association between severe shoulder/arm and knee/leg pain, and quality of life after retirement.

Authors:  Clermont E Dionne; Annette Leclerc; Matthieu Carton; Zakia Mediouni; Marcel Goldberg; Marie Zins; Alexis Descatha
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 4.  Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  R T Anderson; N K Aaronson; D Wilkin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics.

Authors:  J Alonso; L Prieto; J M Antó
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Exploring health preferences in sociodemographic and health related groups through the paired comparison of the items of the Nottingham health profile.

Authors:  L Prieto; J Alonso
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  The measurement of current perceived health among Chinese people in Guangzhou and Hong Kong, southern China.

Authors:  J Li; R Fielding
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  A structural equation model to test a conceptual framework of oral health in Japanese edentulous patients with an item weighting method using factor score weights: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Eijiro Yamaga; Yusuke Sato; Shunsuke Minakuchi
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 9.  Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review.

Authors:  Beth Pollard; Marie Johnston; Diane Dixon
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures.

Authors:  Luis Prieto; José A Sacristán
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.