Oliver Adam
LSE Health and Social Care, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK.
J Health Econ. 2006 Sep;25(5):803-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.08.004. Epub 2005 Sep 23.
Moving between choice and direct valuation procedures can cause substantial, systematic preference reversals, which is problematic because it leaves us unsure as to which procedure (if any) is 'best'. This article reports a study that tests whether using a ranking procedure to infer values rather than more conventional direct valuation can negate this phenomenon. The results suggest that the ranking procedure can render strict preference reversals both less substantial and less systematic. This could have important implications for the valuation of health outcomes, and in attempting to ascertain whether choice, valuation or ranking best uncovers people's preferences, similar tests in the context of more realistic health outcome descriptions are recommended.
在选择程序和直接估值程序之间切换可能会导致实质性的、系统性的偏好逆转，这是个问题，因为这让我们不确定哪种程序（如果有的话）是“最佳的”。本文报告了一项研究，该研究测试使用排序程序来推断价值而非更传统的直接估值是否可以消除这种现象。结果表明，排序程序可以使严格的偏好逆转在程度上不那么严重，系统性也不那么强。这可能对健康结果的估值具有重要意义，并且在试图确定选择、估值或排序哪种方式最能揭示人们的偏好时，建议在更现实的健康结果描述背景下进行类似测试。
