I’ve just tried out the survey promoted by Scope Victoria.
It’s a shame that despite a fair bit of interest expressed in the type of work I do generally (choice modelling) at a disability conference and my work specifically (in valuing social and health care and quality of life in both the UK and Australia), that the powers that be are sticking with old discredited methods.
In particular – there are a whole battery of category rating (visual analogue) scales where you have to give a number from 0 (or 1) to 10 expressing your level of agreement with, or current level experienced of, various aspects of life. I just have two questions:
(1) How are you going to deal with the numerous criticisms of these that Steenkamp and Baumgartner put forward over 10 years ago? Namely culture-specific effects and numerous other biases in how people use these scales (avoid end-points / only use end-points / etc etc)…
(2) How on earth do you hope to summarise how a respondent’s life is overall? You can’t just sum the scores, you have no idea how important they are to the individual since no properly validated task to measure the trade-offs (s)he would be prepared to make between them all was done?
This is simply going to provide a huge textbook of results that will allow service providers and politicians to cherry-pick what they want and concentrate on whatever scores seem to endorse their own views/provision. If you’re going to administer a long survey – and this is VERY long – then you should do a discrete choice experiment to find out what is important to a respondent and what their personal overall disability/quality of life score is.
Then we can track and compare and have a meaningful discussion about disabilitycare and who is being helped or not helped.