Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method

Brazier, J and Dolan, P (2005): Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method.

Abstract

An increasingly important debate has emerged around the extent to which techniques such as the standard gamble, which is used, amongst other things, to value health states, actually serve to construct respondents' preferences rather than simply elicit them. According to standard theory, the variant used should have no bearing on the numbers elicited from respondents, i.e. procedural invariance should hold. This study addresses this debate by comparing two variants of standard gamble in the valuation of health states. It was a mixed methods study that combines a quantitative comparison with the probing of respondents in order to ascertain possible reasons for the differences that emerged. Significant differences were found between variants and, furthermore, there was evidence of an ordering effect. Respondents’ responses to probing suggested that they were influenced by the method of elicitation.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: preference construction; anchoring effects; ordering effects; standard gamble; health valuation
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I19 - Other

References

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002). The estimation a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21(2):271-292.

Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW (1997). Anchoring and adjustment in single-bounded, contingent-valuation questions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79:1495-1500.

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996). Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics 15:209-31.

Dolan P (2000). The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds), Handbook of Health Economics (Volume 1). Elsevier Science BV.

Dolan P, Robinson A (2001). The measurement of preferences over the distribution of benefits: the importance of the reference point. European Economic Review 45(9):1697-1709.

Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications.

Feeney D, Furlong W, Torrance G, Goldsmith CH, Zenglong Z, DePauw S, Denton D, Boyle M (2002). Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utility Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care 40(2):113-128.

Fischoff B (1991). Value elicitation: is there anything there? American Psychologist 46:835-47.

Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J (1990). Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Paper 90-9, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, O'Reilly D, Phillips P (1993). The value of preventing non-fatal road injuries: findings of a willingness-to-pay national sample survey. Transport Research Laboratory.

Kahneman D (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 51:296-312.

Lenert L, Cher DJ, Goldstein MR, Bergen MR, Garber AM (1998). The effect of search procedure on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making 18:76-83.

Lloyd A (2003). Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preferences elicitation methods accurate? Health Economics 12(5):393-402.

Loomes G (1993). Disparities between health state measures: is there a rational explanation? In: Gerrard W, The Economics of Rationality. Routledge: London.

Mehrez A, Gafni A (1993). Healthy-years equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: in pursuit of progress. Medical Decision Making [issue missing]:287-292.

Oliver A (2003). A quantitative and qualitative test of the Allais Paradox using health outcomes. J Econ Psychol 24:35-48.

Schoemaker PJH (1982). The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20:529-63.

Shiell A, Gold L (2002). Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow. J Econ Psychol 23(2):251-62.

Slovic P (1995). The construction of preferences. American Psychologist 50(95):364-71.

Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton.