Research Article| Volume 56, ISSUE 9, P848-855, September 2003

Validity of a modified standard gamble elicited from parents of a hospital-based cohort of children



      To examine the validity of a modified standard gamble (Mod SG) (nondeath baseline) by comparing these scores to SG (death baseline), time trade off (TTO), visual analog scale (VAS), Health Utilities Index (HUI), and Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ).


      Respondents were parents of in-patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and parents of children without cancer attending outpatient clinics. Construct validity was determined by comparing a priori hypotheses to actual correlations between measures. Discriminant validity was examined by anticipating that in-patients with cancer would have lower HRQL than outpatients.


      85 families were included. Both Mod SG and SG were moderately correlated with TTO (r = 0.50 and r = 0.49; P<.01 for both). Both Mod SG and SG were moderately correlated with TTO (r = 0.47 and r = 0.05, P<0.002 for both).


      The Mod SG did not perform better than SG. Two nonoverlapping groups of HRQL measures were demonstrated.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Froberg D.G.
        • Kane R.L.
        Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 345-354
        • Kahneman D.
        • Tversky A.
        Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
        Econometrica. 1979; 1979: 263-291
        • Tversky A.
        • Kahneman D.
        Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty.
        J Risk Uncert. 1992; 5: 297-323
        • Machina M.J.
        “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom.
        Econometrica. 1982; 1982: 277-323
        • Revicki D.A.
        • Kaplan R.M.
        Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life.
        Qual Life Res. 1993; 2: 477-487
        • Nease Jr., R.F.
        • Tsai R.
        • Hynes L.M.
        • Littenberg B.
        Automated utility assessment of global health.
        Qual Life Res. 1996; 5: 175-182
        • Juniper E.F.
        • Norman G.R.
        • Cox F.M.
        • Roberts J.N.
        Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma.
        Eur Respir J. 2001; 18: 38-44
        • Juniper E.F.
        • Thompson A.K.
        • Roberts J.N.
        Can the standard gamble and rating scale be used to measure quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis? Comparison with the RQLQ and SF036.
        Allergy. 2002; 57: 201-206
      1. Brunner HI, Maker D, Grundland B, Young NL, Blanchette V, Stein A-M, Feldman BM. Can we measure utilities/health related quality of life (HRQL) in children with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD)? Med Decis Making; in press.

        • Torrance G.W.
        Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods.
        Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med. 1982; 20: 37-45
      2. O'Brien BJ, Torrance GW, Moran LA. A practical guide to health state preference measurement: a video introduction. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Working Paper No. 95–97. Hamilton; 1995.

        • Furlong W.J.
        • Feeny D.H.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Barr R.D.
        The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies.
        Ann Med. 2001; 33: 375-384
        • Feeny D.
        • Furlong W.
        • Barr R.D.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Rosenbaum P.
        • Weitzman S.
        A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 1992; 10: 923-928
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Feeny D.H.
        • Furlong W.J.
        • Barr R.D.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Wang Q.
        Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2.
        Med Care. 1996; 34: 702-722
        • Feeny D.
        • Furlong W.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Goldsmith C.H.
        • Zhu Z.
        • DePauw S.
        • Denton M.
        • Boyle M.
        Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.
        Med Care. 2002; 40: 113-128
        • Landgraf J.
        • Abertz L.
        • Ware J.
        Child health questionnaire (CHQ): a user's manual.
        The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston1996
        • Bowe T.R.
        Measuring patient preferences: rating scale versus standard gamble.
        Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 283-285
        • Feeny D.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Furlong W.
        Health utilities index.
        in: Spilker B. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia1996: 239-252
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Feeny D.
        • Furlong W.
        Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?.
        Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 329-334
        • Von Neumann J.
        • Morgenstern O.
        Theory of games and economic behavior.
        Wiley, New York1953
        • Stiggelbout A.M.
        • Kiebert G.M.
        • Kievit J.
        • Leer J.W.
        • Stoter G.
        • de Haes J.C.
        Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores.
        Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 82-90
        • Colton T.
        Statistics in medicine.
        Little, Brown and Company, Boston1974
        • Liang M.H.
        • Larson M.G.
        • Cullen K.E.
        • Schwartz J.A.
        Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.
        Arthritis Rheum. 1985; 28: 542-547
        • Sung L.
        • Greenberg M.L.
        • Doyle J.J.
        • Young N.L.
        • Ingber S.
        • Rubenstein J.
        • Wong J.
        • Samanta T.
        • McLimont M.
        • Feldman B.M.
        Construct validation of the health utilities index and the child health questionnaire in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy.
        Br J Cancer. 2003; 88: 1185-1190
        • Stalmeier P.F.
        Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments.
        Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: 53-64
        • Furlong W.
        • Feeny D.
        • Torrance G.W.
        • Goldsmith C.H.
        • DePauw S.
        • Zhu Z.
        • Denton M.
        • Boyle M.
        Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report.
        McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, CHEPA Working Paper 98–11, Hamilton, Ontario1998
        • Bosch J.L.
        • Hunink M.G.
        Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication.
        Qual Life Res. 2000; 9: 591-601
        • Krahn M.
        • Ritvo P.
        • Irvine J.
        • Tomlinson G.
        • Bremner K.E.
        • Bezjak A.
        • Trachtenberg J.
        • Naglie G.
        Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy.
        M. ed Care. 2003; 41: 153-164