Skip to main content

Table 4 Coefficients and indices of the goodness-of-fit of VAS and TTO models

From: Similar responses to EQ-5D-3L by two elicitation methods: visual analogue scale and time trade-off

  Model 1 (VAS) Model 2 (TTO) Model 3 (VAS) Model 4 (TTO)
11111 1 1 1 1
constant − 0.0299 − 0.0141
MO2 − 0.1154 − 0.1292 − 0.1158 − 0.1340
MO3 −0.2180 − 0.2058 − 0.2111 −0.2159
SC2 −0.1060 − 0.1329 − 0.1064 −0.1377
SC3 −0.2172 −0.2220 − 0.2103 −0.2321
UA2 −0.0879 −0.1170 − 0.0884 −0.1218
UA3 −0.2413 −0.2103 − 0.2345 −0.2205
PD2 −0.0767 −0.0673 − 0.0772 −0.0721
PD3 −0.2553 −0.1967 − 0.2484 −0.2068
AD2 −0.0646 −0.1096 − 0.0650 −0.1145
AD3 −0.2087 −0.1893 − 0.2018 −0.1994
N3 0.0439 −0.0318
Adj. R-square 0.9409 0.9499 0.9550 0.9664
AIC − 5285.48 − 6918.29 − 5252.47 − 6876.14
BIC − 5192.57 − 6825.38 − 5172.83 − 6796.50
MAE 0.0304 0.0269 0.0327 0.0310
# > 0.05 4 1 4 4
# > 0.1 0 0 0 0
r 0.9847 0.9879 0.9813 0.9867
Logical error num. 0 0 0 0
  1. All models and regression coefficients were significant (P < 0.05); Adj. R-square adjusted R-square, AIC Akaike information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion, MAE mean absolute error between observed mean and predicted value # > 0.05, number of MAE > 0.05 out of 18 states; # > 0.1, number of MAE > 0.1 out of 18 states, r,correlation coefficient between observed means and predicted values, Logical error num., number of inconsistencies among all predicted health state values