“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”

Instant Access to Thousands of Journals for just $40/month

Try 2 weeks free now

Benefit-of-the-doubt approaches for calculating a composite measure of quality



Standard approaches for determining weights when calculating a composite measure of health care quality from individual quality indicators (QIs) include equal weighting, opportunity-based weights, and judgment-based weights. Benefit-of-the-doubt approaches have not been used in the health services area, though one has been used to calculate composite measures for profiling countries. Underlying these approaches is the assumption that relative performance on a set of indicators is, at least to some extent, a revealed preference by the organizational unit about the relative importance of the indicators. A benefit-of-the-doubt approach recognizes these revealed preferences by assigning higher weights to indicators on which performance is better and lower weights to indicators on which performance is poorer. We consider two benefit-of-the-doubt approaches. The first uses simple linear programming (LP) models; the second uses data envelopment analysis (DEA), the way in which the benefit-of-the-doubt approach has been previously implemented. In both cases, constraints are added to limit weight adjustments to some percentage of policy-determined baseline weights. Using both standard and benefit-of-the-doubt approaches, composite scores are calculated from data on five QIs from 32 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes. We examine the tradeoff between the level of allowable weight adjustment and impact on facility rankings. If weights are constrained to be within 75% of baseline weights, all approaches identify pretty much the same high performing facilities. Weights from benefit-of-the-doubt approaches, because they are able to reflect local preferences and conditions, should be attractive to facilities and, in a collaborative environment, to policy makers.



Health Services and Outcomes Research MethodologySpringer Journals

Published: Dec 1, 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s10742-010-0056-0

Free Preview of First Page

Loading next page...

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.

DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy unlimited access and
personalized recommendations from
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $40/month

Try 2 weeks free now

Explore the DeepDyve Library

How DeepDyve Works

Spend time researching, not time worrying you’re buying articles that might not be useful.

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from Springer, Elsevier, Nature, IEEE, Wiley-Blackwell and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Simple and Affordable Pricing

14-day free trial. Cancel anytime, with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches


Best Deal — 25% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 25% off!
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

billed annually