REFERENCES
- Simon, H. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1955, 69, 99–118.
- Simon, H. Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. The American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 1978, 68, 1–16.
- Albertsen, P.C.; Nease Jr, R.F.; Potosky, A.L. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol 1998, 159, 158–63.
- Ross, P.L.; , Paper standard gamble: a paper-based measure of standard gamble utility for current health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003, 19(1), 135–47.
- Von Neumann, J.; Morgenstern, O. The theory of games and economic behavior. 1947, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Rutten-van Molken, M. B.C.; van Doorslaer, E.; van der Linden, S. Methodological issue of patient utility measurement. Medical Care 1995, 33(9), 922–937.
- Torrance, G.W. Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med 1982, 20, 37–45.
- Smith, D.S.; , Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2002, 167(5), 2117–22.
- Saigal, C.S.; , Stability of time trade-off utilities for health states associated with the treatment of prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 2002, 11(5), 405–14.
- Sprangers, M.A. Response-shift bias: a challenge to the assessment of patients' quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev 1996, 22 Suppl A, 55–62.
- Elkin, E.B.; , Preference assessment method affects decision-analytic recommendations: a prostate cancer treatment example. Med Decis Making 2004, 24(5), 504–10.
- Knight, S.J.; , Pilot study of a utilities-based treatment decision intervention for prostate cancer patients. Clin Prostate Cancer, 2002, 1(2), 105–14.
- Slovic, P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol 1995, 50, 364–371.
- Souchek, J.; , A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care 2000, 38(10), 1040–50.
- Stewart, S.T.; , Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care 2005, 43(4), 347–55.
- Cowen, M.E.; , The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making 1998, 18(4), 376–80.
- Hawthorne, G.; Richardson, J.; Day, N.A. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001, 33(5), 358–70.
- Cook, K.F.; , A psychometric analysis of the measurement level of the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble. Soc Sci Med 2001, 53(10), 1275–85.
- Frisch, D.; Clemen, R.T. Beyond expected utility: rethinking behavioral decision research. Psychol Bull 1994, 116(1), 46–54.
- Cohen, B.J. Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making?. Med Decis Making 1996, 16(1), 1–6.
- Luce, R. Where does subjective expected utility fail descriptively?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1992, 5(1), 5–27.
- Bernstein, L.M.; Chapman, G.B.; Elstein, A.S. Framing effects in choices between multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries. Med Decis Making 1999, 19(3), 324–38.
- Kahnemann, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–90.
- Nease, R.F., Jr. Do violations of the axioms of expected utility theory threaten decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1996, 16(4), 399–403.