It must be awful for them
When survey respondents rate the quality of life (QoL) associated with a health condition, they must not only evaluate the health condition itself, but must also interpret the meaning of the rating scale in order to assign a specific value. The way that respondents approach this task depends on subj...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2006-11-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06018.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797721901099909120 |
|---|---|
| author | Heather P. Lacey Angela Fagerlin George Loewenstein Dylan M. Smith Jason Riis Peter A. Ubel |
| author_facet | Heather P. Lacey Angela Fagerlin George Loewenstein Dylan M. Smith Jason Riis Peter A. Ubel |
| author_sort | Heather P. Lacey |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | When survey respondents rate the quality of life (QoL) associated with a health condition, they must not only evaluate the health condition itself, but must also interpret the meaning of the rating scale in order to assign a specific value. The way that respondents approach this task depends on subjective interpretations, resulting in inconsistent results across populations and tasks. In particular, patients and non-patients often give very different ratings to health conditions, a discrepancy that raises questions about the objectivity of either groups' evaluations. In this study, we found that the perspective of the raters (i.e., their own current health relative to the health conditions they rated) influences the way they distinguish between different health states that vary in severity. Consistent with prospect theory, a mild and a severe lung disease scenario were rated quite differently by lung disease patients whose own health falls between the two scenarios, whereas healthy non-patients, whose own health was better than both scenarios, rated the two scenarios as much more similar. In addition, we found that the context of the rating task influences the way participants distinguish between mild and severe scenarios. Both patients and non-patients gave less distinct ratings to the two scenarios when each were presented in isolation than when they were presented alongside other scenarios that provided contextual information about the possible range of severity for lung disease. These results raise continuing concerns about the reliability and validity of subjective QoL ratings, as these ratings are highly sensitive to differences between respondent groups and the particulars of the rating task. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:41:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-18689dfb58d8469fb7f8685030d1a78a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:41:02Z |
| publishDate | 2006-11-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-18689dfb58d8469fb7f8685030d1a78a2023-09-02T13:15:02ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752006-11-011NA146152It must be awful for themHeather P. LaceyAngela FagerlinGeorge LoewensteinDylan M. SmithJason RiisPeter A. UbelWhen survey respondents rate the quality of life (QoL) associated with a health condition, they must not only evaluate the health condition itself, but must also interpret the meaning of the rating scale in order to assign a specific value. The way that respondents approach this task depends on subjective interpretations, resulting in inconsistent results across populations and tasks. In particular, patients and non-patients often give very different ratings to health conditions, a discrepancy that raises questions about the objectivity of either groups' evaluations. In this study, we found that the perspective of the raters (i.e., their own current health relative to the health conditions they rated) influences the way they distinguish between different health states that vary in severity. Consistent with prospect theory, a mild and a severe lung disease scenario were rated quite differently by lung disease patients whose own health falls between the two scenarios, whereas healthy non-patients, whose own health was better than both scenarios, rated the two scenarios as much more similar. In addition, we found that the context of the rating task influences the way participants distinguish between mild and severe scenarios. Both patients and non-patients gave less distinct ratings to the two scenarios when each were presented in isolation than when they were presented alongside other scenarios that provided contextual information about the possible range of severity for lung disease. These results raise continuing concerns about the reliability and validity of subjective QoL ratings, as these ratings are highly sensitive to differences between respondent groups and the particulars of the rating task.http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06018.pdfquality of lifehealth state measurementprospecttheorymedical decision making. |
| spellingShingle | Heather P. Lacey Angela Fagerlin George Loewenstein Dylan M. Smith Jason Riis Peter A. Ubel It must be awful for them Judgment and Decision Making quality of life health state measurement prospecttheory medical decision making. |
| title | It must be awful for them |
| title_full | It must be awful for them |
| title_fullStr | It must be awful for them |
| title_full_unstemmed | It must be awful for them |
| title_short | It must be awful for them |
| title_sort | it must be awful for them |
| topic | quality of life health state measurement prospecttheory medical decision making. |
| url | http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06018.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT heatherplacey itmustbeawfulforthem AT angelafagerlin itmustbeawfulforthem AT georgeloewenstein itmustbeawfulforthem AT dylanmsmith itmustbeawfulforthem AT jasonriis itmustbeawfulforthem AT peteraubel itmustbeawfulforthem |