nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.10.2011

Compared to what? A joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life

verfasst von: Heather P. Lacey, George Loewenstein, Peter A. Ubel

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This study tests whether a joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life can stabilize ratings by providing contextual information, thereby helping participants calibrate responses on a rating scale. We also use the method to test for scale recalibration between patients and non-patients.

Method

In an Internet survey, participants (N = 1,865) rated a target health condition, either diabetes or obesity, on a 100-point rating scale. Participants either rated several other items on the same rating scale first (joint evaluation), or rated the target condition first (single evaluation). We compared target condition ratings for joint versus single evaluation, as well as the rank position of that item among the other items. We also compared ratings and rankings for patients versus non-patients.

Results

The method effectively picked up distinct patterns of scale usage, with evidence of scale recalibration for obesity ratings, but not for diabetes ratings. The stabilizing effects of the method were mixed. For both diabetes and obesity, the joint evaluation task helped stabilize the rank position of the target condition, but not the rating.

Conclusions

Results do not conclusively support joint evaluation as a method for reducing noise in rating scale usage, but do support its use for detecting scale recalibration between patients and non-patients.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917–927.PubMedCrossRef

Schulz, R., & Decker, S. (1985). Long-term adjustment to physical disability: The role of social support, perceived control, and self-blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1162–1172.PubMedCrossRef

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2005). Disability and sunshine: Can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 111–123.PubMedCrossRef

Sackett, D. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1978). The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 31(11), 697–704.PubMedCrossRef

Riis, J., Loewenstein, G., Baron, J., Jepson, C., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). Ignorance of hedonic adaptation to hemo-dialysis: A study using ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), 3–9.CrossRef

Boyd, N. F., Sutherland, H. J., Heasman, K. Z., Tritchler, D. L., & Cummings, B. J. (1990). Whose utilities for decision analysis? Medical Decision Making, 10(1), 58–67.PubMedCrossRef

Smith, D. M., Sherriff, R. L., Damschroder, L. J., Loewenstein, G., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychology, 25(6), 688–695.PubMedCrossRef

Hurst, N. P., Jobanputra, P., Hunter, M., Lambert, C. M., Lockhead, A., & Brown, H. (1994). Validity of EuroQoL—A generic health status instrument in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 655–662.PubMedCrossRef

Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Corbiere, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J., & Cohen, R. (2005). Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: True change or response shift? Quality of Life Research, 14, 611–627.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Sieff, E. M., Dawes, R. M., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Anticipated versus actual reaction to HIV test results. American Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 297–311.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Schwartz, C. E., Bode, R., Repucci, N., Becker, J., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Fayers, P. M. (2006). The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: A meta-analysis of response shift. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1533–1550.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Eton, D. T. (2010). Why we need response shift: An appeal to functionalism. Quality of Life Research, 19, 929–930.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic Adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.

15.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134.CrossRef

17.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.

18.

Oort, F. J. (2005). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Quality of Life Research, 14, 587–598.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2005). An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery. Quality of Life Research, 14, 599–609.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Visser, M. R. M., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2005). Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: A convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research, 14, 629–639.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Hsee, C. K., & Tang, J. (2007). Sun and water: On a modulus-based measurement of happiness. Emotion, 7, 213–218.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576–590.CrossRef

23.

Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 247–257.CrossRef

24.

Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2004). “Is 28% Good or Bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 142–148.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lacey, H. P., Fagerlin, A., Loewenstein, G., Smith, D. M., Riis, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). It must be awful for them. Perspective and task context affects ratings for health conditions. Judgment and Decision making, 1(2), 146–152.

26.

Lacey, H. P., Fagerlin, A., Loewenstein, G., Smith, D., Riis, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2008). Are they really that happy? Exploring scale recalibration in estimates of well-being. Health Psychology, 27(6), 669–675.PubMedCrossRef

27.

O’Brien, R. G. (1979). A general ANOVA method for robust tests of additive models of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 877–881.CrossRef

28.

O’Brien, R. G. (1981). A simple test for variance effects in experimental designs. Psychological Bulletin, 89(3), 570–574.

29.

Damschroder, L. G., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Kulpa, J. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2008). Considering adaptation in preference elicitations. Health Psychology, 27(3), 394–399.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Ubel, P. A., Peeters, Y., & Smith, D. (2010). Abandoning the language of “response shift”: A plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibration from true changes in quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 19, 465–471.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (2010). Do not throw out the baby with the bath water: build on current approaches to realize conceptual clarity. Response to Ubel, Peeters, and Smith. Quality of Life Research, 19, 477–479.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Ubel, P. A., & Smith, D. (2010). Why should changing the bathwater have to harm the baby? Quality of Life Research, 19, 481–482.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Reeve, B. B. (2010). An opportunity to refine our understanding of “response shift” and to educate researchers on designing quality research studies: Response to Ubel, Peeters, and Smith. Quality of Life Research, 19, 473–475.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Compared to what? A joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life
verfasst von: Heather P. Lacey
George Loewenstein
Peter A. Ubel
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2011
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9856-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2011

Concordance in the measurement of quality of life and health indicators between two methods of computer-assisted interviews: self-administered and by telephone

Dimensionality and measurement invariance in the Satisfaction with Life Scale in Norway

Does the subjective quality of life of children with specific learning disabilities (SpLD) agree with their parents’ proxy reports?

The influence of psychosocial factors on quality of life among women with pain: a prospective study in Sweden

A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey

Quality of life: a key variable to consider in the evaluation of adjustment in parents of children with autism spectrum disorders and in the development of relevant support and assistance programmes