1 Roessingh Research & Development, Enschede, the Netherlands 2 University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands 3 Unity Health System, Rochester, New York, USA 4 University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA 5 Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Patient. 2008 Apr 1;1(2):127-35. doi: 10.2165/01312067-200801020-00008.
To test the applicability of multi-criteria decision analysis preference elicitation techniques in cognitively impaired individuals.
A convenience sample of 16 cognitively impaired subjects and 12 healthy controls was asked to participate in a small pilot study. The subjects determined the relative importance of four decision criteria using five different weight elicitation techniques, namely simple multi-attribute rating technique, simple multi-attribute rating technique using swing weights, Kepner-Tregoe weighting, the analytical hierarchical process, and conjoint analysis.
Conjoint analysis was judged to be the easiest method for weight elicitation in the control group (Z = 10.00; p = 0.04), while no significant differences in difficulty rating between methods was found in cognitively impaired subjects. Conjoint analysis elicitates weights and rankings significantly different from other methods. Subjectively, cognitively impaired subjects were positive about the use of the weight elicitation techniques. However, it seems the use of swing weights can result in the employment of shortcut strategies.
The results of this pilot study suggest that individuals with mild cognitive impairment are willing and able to use multi-criteria elicitation methods to determine criteria weights in a decision context, although no preference for a method was found. The same methodologic and practical issues can be identified in cognitively impaired individuals as in healthy controls and the choice of method is mostly determined by the decision context.
测试多准则决策分析偏好 elicitation 技术在认知障碍个体中的适用性。
一项方便样本研究纳入 16 名认知障碍个体和 12 名健康对照者。要求研究对象使用 5 种不同的权重 elicitation 技术（即简单多属性评分技术、使用摆动权重的简单多属性评分技术、Kepner-Tregoe 加权法、层次分析法和联合分析）来确定 4 个决策标准的相对重要性。
在对照组中，联合分析被认为是权重 elicitation 最容易的方法（Z = 10.00；p = 0.04），而在认知障碍个体中，各方法之间的难度评分无显著差异。联合分析得出的权重和排名与其他方法显著不同。主观上，认知障碍个体对权重 elicitation 技术的使用持积极态度。然而，使用摆动权重似乎会导致采用快捷策略。
这项初步研究的结果表明，轻度认知障碍个体愿意且能够使用多准则 elicitation 方法来确定决策情境中的标准权重，尽管尚未发现偏好某一方法的证据。在认知障碍个体和健康对照者中均可识别出相同的方法学和实际问题，而方法的选择主要取决于决策情境。
