An overview of the time trade-off method: concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health

References

• Gill TM, Feinstein ARA. Critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272(8):619–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, et al. Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan M. The new subjective medicine: taking the patient’s point of view on health care and health. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1595–1604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamming JF, de Vries J. Measuring quality of life. Br J Surg. 2007;94:923–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. The measurement of health and health status: concepts, methods and applications from a multidisciplinary perspective. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, et al. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2395–2404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:11–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sox HC, Higgins MC, Owens DK. Medical decision making. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Fanshel S, Bush JW. A health-status index and its applications to health-services outcomes. Oper Res. 1970;18:1021–1066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW A Generalized Cost-effectiveness Model for the Evaluation of Health Programs. [dissertation]. Buffalo (NY): State University of New York at Buffalo; 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118–133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grogono AW, Woodgate DJ. Index for measuring health. Lancet. 1970;290:1024–1026.
   Google Scholar
• Klarman HE, Francis JO, Rosenthal GD. Cost effectiveness analysis applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease. Med Care. 1968;6:48–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeckhauser R, Shepard DS. Where now for saving lives? Law Contemp Probs. 1976;40:5–45.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New Engl J Med. 1977;296:716–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selivanova A, Krabbe PFM. Eye tracking to explore attendance in health-state descriptions. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):e0190111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res. 1973;8:228–245.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, et al. The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care. 1976;14:57–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976;11:478–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser R, Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus? Int J Epidemiol. 1978;7:347–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15:393–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, et al. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20:348–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, et al. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:S5–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:661–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e79494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Quantifying disability: data, methods and results. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72:481–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J, Feinstein A, Alvan R. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1201–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:559–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon J. Techniques for valuing health states. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Health Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 454–458.
   Google Scholar
• Neumann von J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. The 2004 edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.
   Google Scholar
• Moscati I. Measuring utility: from the marginal revolution to behavioral economics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR. Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–286.
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. The Measurement of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1959.
   Google Scholar
• Moscati I. Early Experiments in Consumer Demand Theory: 1930-1970. Hist Political Econ. 2007;39(3):359–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being. In: Hess S, Daly A, editors. Handbook of Choice Modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2014;7-48.
   Google Scholar
• Gafni AG. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:207–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsberg AS, Offensend FL. An application of decision theory to a medical diagnosis-treatment problem. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern. 1968;4:355–362.
   Google Scholar
• McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. New Engl J Med. 1981;305:982–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil BJ, Parker SG, Sox HC, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–1262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR. Valuing life: humanizing the regulatory state. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11:447–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res. 1980;28:206–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ. Sequence effects, health profiles and the QALY model: in search of realistic modeling. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:178–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Health states worse than death. In: van Eimeren W, Engelbrecht R, Flagle CD, editors. Third international conference on system science in health care. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1984. p. 1085–1089
   Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, et al. Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;Jul(Suppl 1):53–64,14.
   Google Scholar
• Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, et al. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(9):713–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess. 2014; report no.18.12:p. 1–191.
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi M, Rand K, Luo N. Valuation of health states considered to be worse than death—an analysis of composite time trade-off data from 5 EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2019;22(3):370–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:191–213.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buckingham K, Devlin N. A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health. Health Econ. 2006;15:1149–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:449–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Treadwell JR, Lenert LA. Health values and prospect theory. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:344–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Lit. 2000;38:332–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL, et al. Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurement under risk: tests of generalizations of expected utility. Manage Sci. 2007;53:469–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional trade-off and utility independence. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:21–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Stalmeier P. The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic. J Health Econ. 2003;22:445–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellan-Perpiñan JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. J Health Econ. 2003;22(6):1037–1052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. The way that you do it? An elaborate test of procedural invariance of TTO, using a choice-based design. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:491–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beresniak A, Medina-Lara A, Auray JP, et al. Validation of the underlying assumptions of the quality-adjusted life-years outcome: results from the ECHOUTCOME European project. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:61–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28:299–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer A. A test of the QALY model when health varies over time. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:1697–1706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treadwell JR. Tests of preferential independence in the QALY model. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:418–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Boye KS, Feeny DH, et al. The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17:979–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Busschbach JJ, et al. Thirty down, only ten to go?! awareness and influence of a 10-year time frame in TTO. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):377–384.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin MR, Yu WY, Wang SC. Examination of assumptions in using time tradeoff and standard gamble utilities in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. The “utility” of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1207–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WB. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009;18:549–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J. Evaluating Summary Measures of population Health. In: Murray CJL, Salomon JA, Mathers CD, et al., editors. Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 147–157.
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38:189–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(1):3–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - I: measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:345–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipman SA, Brouwer WBF, Attema AE. The corrective approach: policy implications of recent developments in QALY measurement based on prospect theory. Value Health. 2019;22(7):816–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augestad LA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Kristiansen IS, et al. Impact of transformation of negative values and regression models on differences between the UK and US EQ-5D time trade-off value sets. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30:1203–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, et al. EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah KK, Lloyd A, Oppe M, et al. One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:65–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Minghui L, Stolk A, et al. The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework. J Health Econ. 2013;14:S15–S24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, et al. Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Devlin NJ, Shah KK, et al. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data. Health Econ. 2018;27:23–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah KK, Mulhern B, Longworth L, et al. An empirical study of two alternative comparators for use in time trade-off studies. EuroQol Working Paper Series Number 15001 June 2015, available at: http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/working-paper-series.html.
   Google Scholar
• Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17:151–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelaar-Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM, Hout van den WB. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(5):655–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. Article commentary: judgment and decision making: a personal view. Psychol Sci. 1991;2(3):142–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman DM. Valuing health: well-being, freedom, and suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences – II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459–471..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, et al. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah K, Lloyd A, Devlin N Participants’ responses to valuation tasks and implications for valuing EQ-5D-5L. In Oxford 2011 EuroQol Proceedings. [cited 2020 Jun 9]. Available from: https://euroqol.org
   Google Scholar
• Yang Z. Inconsistency in the valuations of Euroqol Eq-5d-5l Health States in China was More Related to Interviewer and to Interview Process than to Respondents’ Characteristics. Value Health. 2015;18:PA737–A738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM Good day sunshine: about biases, irregularities and inconsistencies in the valuation of health states. In: york 2002 EuroQol Proceedings. [cited 2020 Jun 9]. Available from: https://euroqol.org
   Google Scholar
• Arnesen TM, Norheim OF. Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: time out for time trade off. J Med Humanit. 2003;29(2):81–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devlin N, Shah K, Buckingham K What is the normative basis for selecting the measure of “average” preferences for use in social choices? Office of Health Economics; 2017. Research Paper 201717/01.
   Google Scholar
• Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. How to derive disability weights. In: Murray CJL, Salomon JA, Mathers CD, et al., editors. Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 449–465.
   Google Scholar
• Salomon JA, Murray CJ. A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations. Health Econ. 2004;13:281–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. Valuation structures of health states revealed with singular value decomposition. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:30–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson M, Pliskin JS, Weinstein MC. A note on QALYs, time tradeoff, and discounting. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:188–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Kindle Edition Oxford Scholarship; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Round J. Once bitten twice shy: thinking carefully before adopting the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36:641–643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. visit May 6, 2020. Available from: https://euroqol.org/update-on-the-eq-5q-5l-value-set-for-england
   Google Scholar
• Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A (2018) “Quality review of a proposed EQ-5D-5L value set for England” Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions. Universities of Sheffield and York. EEPRU Research Report 060. [cited 2020 Jun 9]. Available from: http://www.eepru.org.uk/validation-of-the-eq-5d-5l-valuation-set/
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson C, Devlin N, Parkin D Drop dead: is anchoring at ‘dead’ a theoretical requirement in heath state valuation? EuroQol Plenary meeting, Lisbon, 20-21 sept, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Norman R, Mulhern B, Viney R. The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:805–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamm FM. Morality, Mortality. Volume I: death and whom to save from it. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland H, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Boyd NF, et al. Attitudes toward quality of survival the concept of “maximal endurable time”. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:299–309.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stalmeier P, Lamers L, Busschbach J, et al. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Med Care. 2007;45:835–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scalone L, Stalmeier PFM, Milanis S, et al. Values for health states with different life durations. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):917–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45:238–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement – a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1:1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coombs CH. A Theory of Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Suppes P, Krantz DM, Luce RD, et al. Foundations of measurement Vol. II.: geometrical, threshold, and probabilistic representations. Mineola: Dover Publications; 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, et al. Foundations of measurement, Vol. I: additive and polynomial representations. New York: Academic Press; 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Krantz DH, Suppes P, et al. Foundations of measurement, Vol. III: representation, axiomatization, and invariance. New York: Academic Press; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Engelhard G Historical views of invariance: evidence from the measurement theories of Horndike, Thurstone, and Rasch. Educ Psychol Meas. 1992;2:275–291.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Arons AMM, Krabbe PFM. Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theory, assumptions and relationships. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:93–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer GW, Carmon Z, Ariely D, et al. Goal-based construction of preferences: task goals and the prominence effect. Manage Sci. 1999;45:1057–1075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ resour econ. 2011;49:539–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvert M, Kyte D, Price G, et al. Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ. 2019;364:k5267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–1514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, van Asselt ADI, Selivanova A, et al. Patient-centered item selection for a new preference-based generic health status instrument: CS-Base. Value Health. 2019;22:467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonker MF, Attema AE, Donkers B, et al. Are health state valuations from the general public biased? A test of health state preference dependency using self-assessed health and an efficient discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2017;26(12):1534–1547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-Worst Scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van der Heuvel E, Krabbe PFM. An item response theory model to measure health: the multi-attribute preference response model. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Rationality for economists? J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19:73–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expression?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19:203–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, Devlin NJ, Stolk EA, et al. Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care. 2014;52(11):935–943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, Jabrayilov R, Detzel P, et al. A two-step procedure to generate utilities for the Infant health-related Quality of life Instrument (IQI). PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goñi JMR, Oppe M, Stolk E, et al. International valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. PharmacoEconomics. 2020. DOI:10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hoorn R, Donders A, Oppe M, et al. The better than dead method: feasibility and interpretation of a valuation study. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(8):789–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar