Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications

References

• Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual. Health Care 10(Suppl. 1), i55–i60 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hakim Z, Pathak DS. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ. 8(2), 103–116 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J. Health Econ. 25(3), 418–431 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie L, Cairns J, Osman L. Symptom-based outcome measures for asthma: the use of discrete choice methods to assess patient preferences. Health Policy 57(3), 193–204 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Symonds T, Brown M. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ. 18(11), 1261–1276 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Netten A, Skåtun D, Smith P. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome – an application to social care for older people. J. Health Econ. 25(5), 927–944 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, Murawski MM, Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf. J. 33(3), 849–858 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Springer Academic Publishers, Berlin, Germany (2008).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in Econometrics. Zarembka P. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 105–142 (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, UK (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, Chen Y, Buchanan DH, Sdao-Jarvie K. Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 37(8), 1089–1102 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall J, Viney R, Haas M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs. J. Bus. Res. 57(9), 1026–1032 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Swait JD. Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs. Transport. Res. Part B Meth. 43(7), 766–783 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment (Reprinted from Psychological Review, Vol 34, Pg 273, 1927). Psychol. Rev. 101(2), 266–270 (1994).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens SS. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev. 64(3), 153–181 (1957).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley RA, Terry ME. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs.1. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39(3–4), 324–345 (1952).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce RD. Individual Choice Behavior: a Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY, USA (1959).
   Google Scholar
• Kind P. A comparison of two models for scaling health indicators. Int. J. Epidemiol. 11(3), 271–275 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In: Handbook of mathematical psychology. Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 235–406 (1965).
   Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint-measurement – a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1(1), 1–27 (1964).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perline R, Wright BD, Wainer H. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 3(2), 237–255 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of conjoint measurement: an application in medical decision analysis. Med. Decis. Making 12(4), 288–297 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalmeier PF, Bezembinder TG, Unic IJ. Proportional heuristics in time tradeoff and conjoint measurement. Med. Decis. Making 16(1), 36–44 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Rasch G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 19(1), 49–57 (1966).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CA et al. The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 3, 83 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S, Lomholt RK. Mini-Mental Status Examination: mixed Rasch model item analysis derived two different cognitive dimensions of the MMSE. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60(3), 268–279 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med. Decis. Making 28(1), 113–126 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young T, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual. Life Res. 18(2), 253–265 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young TA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A. The use of rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med. Decis. Making 31(1), 195–210 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model. Proceedings of the 29th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group, Conference Paper. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 13–14 September 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Brogden HE. Rasch model, law of comparative judgment and additive conjoint measurement. Psychometrika 42(4), 631–634 (1977).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2(3), 451–462 (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Guttman L. The basis for Scalogram analysis. In: Measurement & Prediction, The American Soldier. Stouffer SA, Suchman A, Leland C et al. (Eds). Wiley, NY, USA (1950).
   Google Scholar
• Coombs CH. A Theory of Data. John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA (1964).
   Google Scholar
• Green PE, Rao VR. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J. Market. Res. 8(3), 355–363 (1971).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J. Choice Model. 3(3), 57–72 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschak J. Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators. In: Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Arrow K, Karlin S, Suppes P (Eds). Stanford University Press, Stanford, Germany, 312–329 (1960).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J. Bus. 53(3), S13–S29 (1980).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Economic choices. Am .Econ. Rev. 91(3), 351–378 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul. Health Metr. 1(1), 12 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Politic. Econ. 74, 132–157 (1966).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments – an approach based on aggregate data. J. Market. Res. 20(4), 350–367 (1983).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanshel S, Bush JW. A health-status index and its application to health-services outcomes. Oper. Res. 18(6), 1021–1066 (1970).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadorn DC, Hays RD, Uebersax J, Hauber T. Improving task comprehension in the measurement of health state preferences. A trial of informational cartoon figures and a paired-comparison task. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(3), 233–243 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe PF. Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes. Med. Care 46(4), 357–365 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PF. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health 13(8), 1005–1013 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med. 33(5), 337–343 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc. Sci. Med. 67(5), 874–882 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rowen D, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A. Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health–dead scale. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 575–587 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Busschbach JJ. The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation. Popul. Health Metr. 7, 3 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Busschbach J, Salomon JA. Ordinal valuation of health states: a seven country comparison. Proceedings of the EuroQol plenary meeting. Barcelona, Spain September 14–16 2006
   Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares A, Böckenholt U. Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychol. Methods 10(3), 285–304 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares A, Böckenholt U. Modeling subjective health outcomes: top 10 reasons to use Thurstone’s method. Med. Care 46(4), 346–348 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Oppe M, Krabbe PFM. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling. Value Health 15(4), A198–A199 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med. Care 42(1 Suppl.), I7–16 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(12), 1957–1965 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 26(1), 171–189 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AA, Coast J, Peters TJ. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul. Health Metr. 6, 6 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J. Math. Psychol. 49(6), 464–480 (2005).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Public Policy Market 11, 12–25 (1992).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best–worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 9(1), 15–27 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 10(3), 259–267 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med. Decis. Making 17(1), 21–32 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc. Sci. Med. 34(5), 559–569 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences – II: Scaling methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 42(5), 459–471 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 11(5), 447–456 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalmeier PF, Lamers LM, Busschbach JJ, Krabbe PF. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Med. Care 45(9), 835–841 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ. 61(2), 188–194 (1985).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J. Health Econ. 31(1), 306–318 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Devlin N, Van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, De Charro FTH. EuroQol Group’s international protocol for the valuation of the EQ-5D-5L. Presented at: 29th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, September 13–14 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe PF, Stalmeier PF, Lamers LM, Busschbach JJ. Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales. Qual. Life Res. 15(10), 1651–1661 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost–utility analysis? Health Econ. 15(7), 653–664 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med. Decis. Making 21(1), 17–27 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwartz A. Rating scales in context. Med. Decis. Making 18(2), 236 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Decis. Making 21(4), 329–334 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med. Decis. Making 17(2), 208–216 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McPhail S, Beller E, Haines T. Reference bias: presentation of extreme health states prior to EQ-VAS improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised cross-over trial. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 8, 146 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Smith D, Langa KM, Fagerlin A. What is perfect health to an 85-year-old? Evidence for scale recalibration in subjective health ratings. Med. Care 43(10), 1054–1057 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Eur. J. Health Econ. 5(3), 199–202 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe PF, Salomon JA, Murray CJ. Quantification of health states with rank-based nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Med. Decis. Making 27(4), 395–405 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Torgerson WS. Theory and Methods of Scaling. Oxford, England (1958).
   Google Scholar
• De Ayala RJ. The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. Guilford Publications, New York, NY, USA (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Erlbaum Associates, Abingdon, UK (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares A. Thurstonian modeling of ranking data via mean and covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika 64(3), 325–340 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhard G. Historical views of invariance – evidence from the measurement theories of Thorndike, Thurstone, and Rasch. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 52(2), 275–291 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Debreu G. Review of R.D. Luce’s individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Am. Econ. Rev. 50, 186–188 (1960).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow K. Social Choice and Individual Values, Second edition (Cowles Foundation Monographs Series). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA (1970).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econom. 15(5), 447–470 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar