Erratum to: Qual Life Res (2016) 25:637–649 DOI 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3
In this article by R. Norman et al., the article by M. T. King et al. is cited as Reference 10, as ‘Submitted’ and ‘Under Review’. However, the Reference 10 should appear with year, volume and page numbers as:
King et al., Quality of Life Research (2016); 25(3):625–636.
Also an error was found in Table 1 in the reported wording of the Physical Functioning item. The error and correction are described below. The error was limited to Table 1. The survey described in the paper used the correct labelling, and the validity of the analysis is therefore unaffected by the error.
Correction to Table 1: Level labels for the Physical Functioning dimension
Incorrect label originally reported | Correct label | |
---|---|---|
Level 1 | No trouble taking a short walk outside of the house | No trouble taking a long walk |
Level 2 | At least a little trouble taking a short walk outside of the house, and no trouble taking a long walk | At least a little trouble taking a long walk but no trouble taking a short walk outside the house |
Level 3 | At least a little trouble taking a short walk outside of the house, and at least a little trouble taking a long walk | A little trouble taking a short walk outside the house |
Level 4 | Quite a bit or very much trouble taking a short walk outside the house | Quite a bit or very much trouble taking a short walk outside the house |
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N.K. et al. Erratum to: Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res 26, 2247–2248 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1546-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1546-0