Damschroder Laura J, Baron Jonathan, Hershey John C, Asch David A, Jepson Christopher, Ubel Peter A
Veterans Affairs (VA), Health Services Research and Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):170-80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04263160.
Can person tradeoff (PTO) value judgments be elicited by a computer, or is a face-to-face interview needed? The authors randomly assigned 95 subjects to interview or computer methods for the PTO, a valuation measure that is often difficult for subjects. They measured relative values of foot numbness, leg paralysis, and quadriplegia (all 3 pairs) at 2 reference group sizes (10 or 100). Relative values did not differ between computer and interview. Overall, 21% of responses were equality responses, 13% were high extreme values, and 5% violated ordinal criteria. The groups did not differ in these measures. The authors also assessed consistency across reference group size (10 v. 100). Although relative values were significantly lower for 100 than for 10, mode did not influence the size of this effect. Subjects made, on average, equally consistent judgments for the 3 comparisons. A computerized PTO elicitation protocol produced results of similar quality to that of a face-to-face interview.
个人权衡（PTO）价值判断能否通过计算机得出，还是需要面对面访谈？作者将95名受试者随机分配至采用访谈或计算机方法进行个人权衡（PTO），这是一种受试者通常较难完成的评估方法。他们在2个参考组规模（10或100）下测量了足部麻木、腿部麻痹和四肢瘫痪（所有3对情况）的相对价值。计算机方法和访谈得出的相对价值并无差异。总体而言，21%的回答为相等反应，13%为极高值，5%违反了序数标准。两组在这些指标上并无差异。作者还评估了参考组规模（10对100）之间的一致性。尽管100时的相对价值显著低于10时，但模式并未影响这种效应的大小。受试者在3项比较中平均做出了同等一致的判断。计算机化的个人权衡（PTO）引出方案产生的结果质量与面对面访谈相似。
