Can we fix it? Yes we can! But what? A new test of procedural invariance in TTO-measurement
Arthur Attema and
Werner Brouwer ()
Health Economics, 2008, vol. 17, issue 7, 877-885
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. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1315 Link to full text; subscription required (text/html)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:17:y:2008:i:7:p:877-885
Access Statistics for this article
Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones
More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().