OBJECTIVE: To compare the discriminatory power of two different measures – graphic positioning scale (GPS) and traditional scale (TS) – in assessing respondent acceptability of three utility measures: standard gamble (SG), visual analogue scale (VAS) and willingness to pay (WTP). METHODS: Two face-to-face interviews were conducted at least one week apart in a convenience sample of women aged 22 to 50 years with no history of breast cancer or cancer requiring chemotherapy. Study participation required completion of two surveys: one evaluating utility for an acute condition (post chemotherapy nausea and vomiting: PCNV), and the other, for a chronic condition (breast cancer). Data were collected between March, 2000 and June, 2000 at a University in the Midwest US. Respondents were randomized to either GPS or TA. A four-way, mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) – 2x(2x3x4) – was conducted, i.e., assessment (GPS/TS), condition (acute and chronic), utility (VAS, SG, WTP) and acceptability (difficulty, clarity, reasonableness and comfort). Each of the four levels of acceptability was measured on a nine-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Analysis of 119 useable respondent surveys showed that condition, utility, and acceptability were significant main effects. Furthermore, ANOVA results suggested three significant interactions: condition and assessment; condition and acceptability; utility and acceptability. CONCLUSION: Results of this study support Narayana’s (1977) findings in the marketing literature and indicate that GPS has higher discriminatory power than TS in assessing respondent acceptability of utility measures. These results can be explained by direct versus indirect comparisons made with GPS and TS methods respectively.