Analog scale,magnitude estimation,and person trade‐off as measures of health utility: biases and their correction

Subjects judged the disutility of health conditions (e.g. blindness) using one of them (e.g. blindness+deafness) as a standard, using three elicitation methods: analog scale (AS, how bad is blindness compared to blindness+deafness?); magnitude estimation (ME, blindness+deafness is how many times as bad as blindness?); and person trade‐off (PTO, how many people cured of blindness is as good as 10 people cured of blindness+deafness?). ME disutilities of the less bad condition were smallest, and AS was highest. Interleaving PTO with ME made PTO more like ME. AS disutilities were inconsistent with direct judgments of differences between pairs of conditions. ME and PTO judgments were internally inconsistent: e.g. the disutility of one‐eye‐blindness relative to blindness+deafness was larger than predicted from comparison of each to blindness. Consistency training reduced inconsistency, increased agreement between AS and PTO, and transferred from one method to the other. The results support the use of consistency checks in utility elicitation. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.