Scale of reference bias and the evolution of health

Original Papers

Abstract

The analysis of subjective measures of well-being-such as self-reports by individuals about their health status is frequently hampered by the problem of scale of reference bias. A particular form of scale of reference bias is age norming. In this study we corrected for scale of reference bias by allowing for individual specific effects in an equation on subjective health. A random effects ordered response model was used to analyze scale of reference bias in self-reported health measures. The results indicate that if we do not control for unobservable individual specific effects, the response to a subjective health state measure suffers from age norming. Age norming can be controlled for by a random effects estimation technique using longitudinal data. Further, estimates are presented on the rate of depreciation of health. Finally, simulations of life expectancy indicate that the estimated model provides a reasonably good fit of the true life expectancy.

Keywords

Subjective health Scale of reference bias 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The data of the British Household Panel were made available through the ESRC Data Archive. The data were originally collected by the ESRC Research Centre on Microsocial Change at the University of Essex. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the Archive bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretation presented here. We thank three anonymous referees for their comments on a previous version of this contribution.

References

  1. 1.
    Amemiya T (1985) Advanced econometrics. Basil Blackwell: OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arellano M, Honoré B (2001) Panel data. In: Heckman J, Leamer E (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 5. Elsevier: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agresti A, Lang J (1993) A proportional odds model with subject-specific effects for repeated ordered categorical responses. Biometrika 80:527–534Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cutler D, Richardson E (1997) Measuring the health of the United States population. Brookings papers on economic activity, pp 217–271Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cutler D, Richardson E (1998) The value of health: 1970–1990. Am Econ Rev 88:97–100Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daltroy L, Larson M, Eaton H, Phillips C, Liang M (1999) Discrepancies between self-reported and observed physical function in the elderly: the influence of response shift and other factors. Soc Sci Med 48:1549–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibbons F (1999) Social comparison as a mediator of response shift. Soc Sci Med 48:1517–1530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groot W (2000) Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life. J Health Econ 19:403–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frederick S, Loewenstein G (1999) Hedonic adaptation. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Sage: New York, pp 302–329Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hedeker D, Gibbons R (1994) A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics 50:933–944PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedeker D, Gibbons R (1996) MIXOR: a computer program for mixed-effects ordinal regression analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 49:157–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heyink J (1993) Adaptation and well-being. Psychol Rep 73:1331–1342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maddala G (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKelvey R, Zavoina W (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4:103–120Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Postulart D, Adang E (2000) Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making 20:186–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz C, Sprangers M (1999) Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 48:1531–1548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwartz C, Sprangers M (eds) (2000) Adaptation to changing health: response shift in quality-of-life research. American Psychological Association: WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siegler I (1975) The terminal drop hypothesis: fact or artifact. Exp Aging Res 1:169–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE: LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sprangers M, Schwartz C (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48:1507–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor M, Freed (ed) (1992) British Household Panel Survey user manual. University of Essex: ColchesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health, Organisation, Policy and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2. "Scholar" Research Center for Education and Labor Markets, Department of EconomicsUniversity of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations