Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 105–109 | Cite as

Health Status Utility Assessment by Standard Gamble: A Comparison of the Probability Equivalence and the Lottery Equivalence Approaches

  • Anandi V. Law
  • Dev S. Pathak
  • Mark R. McCord


Purpose. Utility values obtained with the standard gamble (SG) method using the probability equivalence approach (PE) have a reported bias due to the "certainty effect." This effect causes individuals to overvalue a positive outcome when it occurs under certainty. Researchers in the decision sciences have proposed an alternative, "lottery equivalence” (LE) approach, using paired gambles, to eliminate this bias. The major objective of the current study was to investigate the certainty effect in health status utility measures and to test our hypothesis that the certainty effect would act in a reverse direction for negatively valued outcomes.

Methods. Fifty-four subjects completed the study by assessing preferences for three health states by rating scale and then by SG using PE as well as LE approaches with assessment lotteries of 0.5 and 0.75.

Results. The results from 41 useable responses point towards possible existence of the certainty effect in health in the hypothesized direction: utility values obtained with the PE were significantly lower than with the LEs. There was no significant difference between the LE values indicating elimination of the bias.

Conclusions. The results have important implications since the SG using PE is thought be the "gold standard” in health status utility measurements.

Health status utility assessment standard gamble approaches probability equivalence lottery equivalence certainty effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. W. Torrance. J. Chron. Dis. 40(6):593–600 (1987).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. W. Torrance. J. Health Econ. 5:1–30 (1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgernstern. Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, New York. 1947.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. H. Farquhar. Mgmt. Sci. 30(11):1283–1300 (Nov. 1984).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. R. McCord and R. deNeufville. Mgmt. Sci. 32(1):56–60 (Jan. 1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Allais. In M. Allais, and O. Hagen, (eds.). Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Holland, 1979, pp. 437–482.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. C. Hershey, H. C. Kunreuther, and P. J. H. Schoemaker. Mgmt. Sci. 28(8):936–954 (Aug. 1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. T. Clemen. In Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. PWS-Kent, Boston, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. R. McCord and R. deNeufville. J. Large Scale Sys. 6:91–103 (1984).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. W. Torrance. Socioeconomic Planning Science. 10:129–136 (1976).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. F. Drummond, G. L. Stoddart, and G. W. Torrance. In Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, 1992, pp. 112–148.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. L. Sackett and G. W. Torrance. J. Chron. Dis. 31:697–704 (1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. R. Bowe. Medical Decision Making. 15(3):283–285 (Jul–Sep 1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Furlong, D. Feeny, G. W. Torrance, R. Barr, and J. Horsman. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. working Paper Series. Ontario, Canada: Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1990, Paper#90-9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. C. G. Verhoef, A. F. J. DeHaan, and W. A. J. Van Daal. Medical Decision Making. 14:194–200, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Z. A. Hakim. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. E. Kirk. Experimental Design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Brooks/Cole, California, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Econometrica. 47:263–291 (1979).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Loomes and R. Sugden. Economics Journal. 92:805 (1982).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Loomes and R. Sugden. J. Econ. Theory. 41:270 (1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anandi V. Law
    • 1
  • Dev S. Pathak
    • 2
  • Mark R. McCord
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, College of PharmacyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  2. 2.College of Medicine and Public Health and College of PharmacyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  3. 3.Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Graphics, College of EngineeringThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations