Froberg D G, Kane R L
Division of Human Development and Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):459-71. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4.
This paper begins with a discussion of measurement principles relevant to determining health-state preferences. Six scaling methods are described and evaluated on the basis of their reliability, validity, and feasibility. They are the standard gamble, time trade-off, rating scale, magnitude estimation, equivalence, and willingness-to-pay methods. Reliability coefficients for most methods are acceptable although the low coefficients for measurements taken a year apart suggest that preferences change over time. Convergent validity among methods has been supported in some but not all studies, and there are limited data supporting hypothetical relationships between preferences and other variables. The category ratings method is easiest to administer and appears to yield valid scale values; thus, it is recommended for large-sample studies. However, decision-oriented methods, particularly the time trade-off and standard gamble, may be more effective in small-scale investigations and individual decision making.
本文首先讨论了与确定健康状态偏好相关的测量原则。基于可靠性、有效性和可行性,对六种标度方法进行了描述和评估。它们是标准博弈法、时间权衡法、评定量表法、数量估计法、等价法和支付意愿法。大多数方法的可靠性系数是可以接受的,尽管相隔一年进行测量的系数较低,这表明偏好会随时间变化。一些但并非所有研究都支持方法之间的收敛效度,而且支持偏好与其他变量之间假设关系的数据有限。类别评定法最易于实施,似乎能产生有效的量表值;因此,推荐用于大样本研究。然而,面向决策的方法,特别是时间权衡法和标准博弈法,在小规模调查和个体决策中可能更有效。