5
Sources
933
Studies
52143
Questions
490
Persons

Find researchers

You can also enter parts of the name to get a wider search result.
Creator: Jonker, M., Donkers, B., De Bekker-Grob, E.
Titlesort ascending Description
Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling > SF-6D

In April 2011, the LISS panel completed the SF-6D questionnaire. The questionnaire serves to validate the Dutch SF-6D (classification for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands.Respondents were first presented a number of example questions, so that they could practice with the setup and layout of the multiple choice questions. This was followed by the 14 actual multiple choice questions (pairwise comparisons), consisting of part A and part B. For each decision-making situation, respondents were asked to imagine they only had a few years left to live. For every question three options were given, indicating in what health condition the respondents could spend the last years of their life. Respondents then indicated which option they preferred. Part A of every question offered a choice between option A and B, these had an equal remaining life expectancy, but under different health conditions: a better, equal or worse score on the 6 health aspects of “bodily functioning”, “physical and/or emotional constraints”, “social activities”, “pain”, “depressed and glum”, and “energetic”. In part B of each question, exactly the same options were shown as in part A, but the choice offered was between option B, to live longer in worse health, or C, to live shorter in perfect health.The remaining life expectancies and health conditions differed per question, as well as per version (note that option C always meant a perfect health condition, but a shorter life expectancy that options A and B). Respondents were assigned to one of the eight versions. The health aspects were displayed on screen in random order (this order was maintained throughout the rest of the questionnaire). Color schemes were used for the scores on health aspects. The colors were dependent on the group to which the respondent belonged: Group 1: the traffic light colors of red-orange-green, unless colorblind and opted for the purple colors. Group 2: the purple colors (from light to dark), unless colorblind and opted for the traffic light colors. With the traffic light colors, red represented poor, orange represented average, and green represented good health. With the purple colors, the lighter variants represented poor health and the darker variants good health. This was done to see to what extent the colors contribute to the comparatively large weight of the poor health conditions.The variables for the version, the question, the scores on the 6 health aspects and the remaining life expectancies were captured.

Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling > EQ-5D

In April 2011, the LISS panel completed the EQ-5D questionnaire. The questionnaire serves to validate the Dutch EQ-5D (classification for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands. The questionnaire also examines the best way of posing the questions. For this purpose, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling are used (the evaluation of three health states simultaneously). Respondents were first presented a number of example questions, so that they could practice with the setup and layout of the multiple choice questions. This was followed by 12 multiple choice questions. For each decision-making situation, respondents were asked to imagine they only had a few years left to live. For every question three options were given, indicating in what health condition the respondents could spend the last years of their life. Respondents then indicated which option they preferred. Depending on the group to which the respondent belonged, (some) questions consisted of pairwise comparisons, each question then comprised a part A and part B. In part A, a choice was offered between options A and B. These options offered an equal life expectancy but different health conditions: a better, equal of worse score on the 5 health aspects of “problems with walking”, “problems with washing or dressing”, “problems with daily activities”, “pain or discomfort” and “anxiety or depression”. In part B, exactly the same options were displayed as in part A, but here the choice was between option B, to live longer in poorer health, and C, to live shorter in perfect health. Also depending on the group to which the respondent belonged, (some) questions consisted of evaluations of the three health conditions simultaneously (best-worst scale distribution). The groups were as follows: Group 1: 12 pairwise comparisons (questions eo11a019-eo11a042), followed by evaluation. Group 2: 12 best-worst questions (questions eo11a043-eo11a066), followed by evaluation. Group 3: 6 pairwise comparisons (questions eo11a067-eo11a078), followed by evaluation, and 6 best-worst questions (questions eo11a084-eo11a095), followed by evaluation. The remaining life expectancies and health conditions differed per question and per version (note that option C always represented perfect health, but with a shorter life expectancy than options A and B). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the eight versions. The health aspects were displayed on the screen in random order (this order was maintained throughout the rest of the questionnaire). Colors were used for the scores on health aspects. The colors depended on the group to which the respondent belonged: Group 1: light purple=good health, dark purple=poor health. Group 2: light purple=poor health, dark purple=good health. This was done to check in how far the colors contribute to the relatively large weight of the poor health conditions. The variables for the version, the question, the scores on the 5 health aspects, and the remaining life expectancies were captured.

Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling

In April 2011, the LISS panel completed two questionnaires about the valuation of health. The questionnaires serve to validate the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D (classifications for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands. For this purpose, the SF-6D questionnaire uses discrete choice experiments (pairwise comparisons). The EQ-5D is a shorter and simpler instrument than the SF-6D. Therefore, the EQ-5D questionnaire also examines the best way of posing the questions. For this purpose, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling are used (the evaluation of three health states simultaneously).

Creator: Hagenaars, M.A., Hagenaars, J.A.
Titlesort ascending Description
Tonic immobility in response to trauma: Prevalence and consequences > Wave 1 - Part 2

In August 2011, a questionnaire on traumatic experiences was administered to the LISS panel. This study consisted of several scales measuring personality traits in relation to traumatisation. This is part two of two questionnaires on traumatic experiences.

Tonic immobility in response to trauma: Prevalence and consequences > Wave 1 - Part 1

In July 2011 a questionnaire on traumatic experiences was administered to the LISS panel.The survey investigates traumatic experiences people may have had in the past. This is part one of two questionnaires on traumatic experiences.

Tonic immobility in response to trauma: Prevalence and consequences

This project consists of a series of studies utilising several scales measuring personality traits in relation to traumatisation.

Creator: Elshout, M.
Titlesort ascending Description
The Psychology of Vengeance > Main Measurement January 2013

In January 2013, the LISS panel was presented the questionnaire about vengeance.In December 2012, a random sample of 2490 panel members was presented a “preliminary question”, which announced the research scheduled for January. Panel members who had read the announcement (2033, response percentage 81.6%), were selected for the questionnaire (of this group, 4 panel members dropped out in the interim).Question

The Psychology of Vengeance > Additional Measurement March 2013

This is an additional measurement of the Vengeance project, because there were too few respondents in the vengeance condition in the main measurement of January 2013. Only questions pertaining to this condition were asked.In February 2013, 4158 panel members who had not been selected previously for the announcement of the main measurement in December 2012 were asked a filter question to determine who qualified for the additional measurement. The filter question was answered by 3392 panel members (response percentage 81.6%), of whom 424 (12.5%) reported to once have taken revenge on someone and to be capable of describing this situation.[Question]

The Psychology of Vengeance

This project is about
vengeance and aims to investigate how vengeance differs from other forms of
negative reciprocity.

Creator: Verhoeven, A.A.C., Adriaanse, M.A., De Ridder, D.T.D., De Vet, E., Fennis, B.M.
Titlesort ascending Description
Reasons to Snack > Part 2

In April 2013, the LISS panel was presented part 2 of the questionnaire “Consumption of snacks”. Besides repeating the Reasons to Snack Scale, the predictive validity of the scale is determined by measuring unhealthy snack consumption.

Pages