Attema Arthur E, Brouwer Werner B F
Department of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Econ. 2008 Jul;17(7):877-85. doi: 10.1002/hec.1315.
The TTO-method is often used to value health states, but it is susceptible to several biases and methodological difficulties. One of these is a violation of procedural invariance, which means that the way a TTO-question is framed, i.e. either by fixing the period in imperfect health or that in perfect health, can have a substantial effect on the elicited value of a health state. There are four important sources of discrepancy of the two procedures: loss aversion, maximum endurable time, scale compatibility and discounting. In this article, we present the results of a new test of procedural invariance in which we avoided or corrected for two of these sources (discounting and maximum endurable time). Our results indicate that while correcting for discounting does diminish the difference between the two TTO-procedures, a large and significant violation of procedural invariance remains. Loss aversion is probably the main determinant of the remainder of this difference.
时间权衡法(TTO法)常被用于评估健康状态,但它容易受到多种偏差和方法学难题的影响。其中之一是违反程序不变性,这意味着TTO问题的构建方式,即要么固定非完美健康状态的时长,要么固定完美健康状态的时长,会对所引出的健康状态价值产生重大影响。这两种程序存在差异的四个重要来源是:损失厌恶、最长耐受时间、量表兼容性和贴现。在本文中,我们展示了一项新的程序不变性测试结果,其中我们避免或纠正了其中两个来源(贴现和最长耐受时间)。我们的结果表明,虽然纠正贴现确实会减小两种TTO程序之间的差异,但程序不变性仍存在很大且显著的违反情况。损失厌恶可能是造成这种差异剩余部分的主要决定因素。