In eliciting health state valuations, two widely used methods are the standard gamble (SG) and the time trade-off (TTO). Both methods make assumptions about individual preferences that are too restrictive to allow them to act as perfect proxies for utility. Therefore, a choice between them might instead be made on empirical grounds. This paper reports on a study which compared a “props” (using specially-designed boards) and a “no props” (using self-completion booklets) variant of each method. The results suggested that both no props variants might be susceptible to framing effects and that TTO props outperformed SG props
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.