Cited 0 time in
Optimizing presentation formats for SF-6Dv2 health status valuation: a qualitative study using cognitive interviews
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Cho, Jahyun | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Bae, Eun-Young | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Jo, Min-Woo | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Ock, Minsu | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-06T02:00:06Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-06T02:00:06Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-10 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0962-9343 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1573-2649 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.gnu.ac.kr/handle/sw.gnu/79580 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | PurposeThe SF-6Dv2 health status valuation using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method requires effective presentation strategies to improve respondents' overall understanding and reduce bias, particularly in online surveys. This study aimed to determine the optimal presentation formats for DCE choice tasks through qualitative interviews.MethodsWe conducted cognitive interviews with 40 South Korean adults using the think-aloud and retrospective probing methods. Participants evaluated five presentation formats (non-emphasized, bold-underlined, yellow-highlighted, graphic circle, and color-shaded) and two duration attribute placement options (upfront vs. end).ResultsFindings revealed that the presentation format influenced three key areas: readability, comprehension, and comparative judgment. The yellow-highlighted format was the most preferred (50%), followed by the bold-underlined (37.5%) and graphic circle formats (25%), with multiple responses allowed. However, the yellow-highlighted format was criticized for being a visual burden and overlooking non-highlighted information, while the graphic format had issues such as scale direction confusion and inappropriate level summation across attributes. Meanwhile, the bold-underlined format was described easy to read, helpful in grasping the meaning quickly, and visually balanced, thereby reducing visual overload. Moreover, it supported comparative judgment by allowing users to clearly distinguish and compare domains without cognitive fatigue. Regarding duration placement, 26 participants preferred upfront placement, stating that it provided essential context for evaluation. Interestingly, the participants preferring upfront placement prioritized survival duration, while those preferring end placement emphasized the quality of life.ConclusionWhile the yellow-highlighted, bold-underlined, and graphic formats improved comprehension, we recommend the bold-underlined format for future SF-6Dv2 valuation studies as it balances comprehension enhancement with greater stability in choice contexts. The findings also suggest that the presentation format has the potential to influence DCE response patterns, warranting further consideration in survey design. | - |
| dc.format.extent | 11 | - |
| dc.language | 영어 | - |
| dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
| dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Publishers | - |
| dc.title | Optimizing presentation formats for SF-6Dv2 health status valuation: a qualitative study using cognitive interviews | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.publisher.location | 네델란드 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11136-025-04036-4 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-105012220386 | - |
| dc.identifier.wosid | 001538483100001 | - |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Quality of Life Research, v.34, no.10, pp 3017 - 3027 | - |
| dc.citation.title | Quality of Life Research | - |
| dc.citation.volume | 34 | - |
| dc.citation.number | 10 | - |
| dc.citation.startPage | 3017 | - |
| dc.citation.endPage | 3027 | - |
| dc.type.docType | Article | - |
| dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | ssci | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
| dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Health Care Sciences & Services | - |
| dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Public, Environmental & Occupational Health | - |
| dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Health Care Sciences & Services | - |
| dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Health Policy & Services | - |
| dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Public, Environmental & Occupational Health | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENT | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | CLASSIFICATION-SYSTEM | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | ORDER | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | RISK | - |
| dc.subject.keywordPlus | PREFERENCES | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | SF-6Dv2 | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Valuation | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Presentation format | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Discrete choice experiment | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Think-aloud study | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
Gyeongsang National University Central Library, 501, Jinju-daero, Jinju-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, 52828, Republic of Korea+82-55-772-0532
COPYRIGHT 2022 GYEONGSANG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.
