Exclusion Criteria as Measurements I: Identifying Invalid Responses

Barry Dewitt, Baruch Fischhoff, Alexander L. Davis, Stephen B. Broomell, Mark S. Roberts and Janel Hanmer
Additional contact information
Barry Dewitt: Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Baruch Fischhoff: Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Alexander L. Davis: Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Stephen B. Broomell: Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Mark S. Roberts: Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Janel Hanmer: Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2019, vol. 39, issue 6, 693-703

Abstract: Background. In a systematic review, Engel et al. found large variation in the exclusion criteria used to remove responses held not to represent genuine preferences in health state valuation studies. We offer an empirical approach to characterizing the similarities and differences among such criteria. Setting. Our analyses use data from an online survey that elicited preferences for health states defined by domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ), with a U.S. nationally representative sample ( N = 1164). Methods. We use multidimensional scaling to investigate how 10 commonly used exclusion criteria classify participants and their responses. Results. We find that the effects of exclusion criteria do not always match the reasons advanced for applying them. For example, excluding very high and very low values has been justified as removing aberrant responses. However, people who give very high and very low values prove to be systematically different in ways suggesting that such responses may reflect different processes. Conclusions. Exclusion criteria intended to remove low-quality responses from health state valuation studies may actually remove deliberate but unusual ones. A companion article examines the effects of the exclusion criteria on societal utility estimates.

Keywords: exclusion criteria; health state valuation; preference-based measures; study design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19856617 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:693-703

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19856617

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().