The Person Trade-Off (PTO) is a methodology aimed at measuring the social value of health states. It is claimed that other methods measure individual utility and are less appropriate for taking resource allocation decisions. However, few studies have been conducted to test the apparent superiority of the method for this particular kind of decision. We present a pilot study to this end. The study is based on the results of interviewing 30 undergraduate students in economics. We compare two well known techniques, the Standard Gamble and the Visual Analogue Scale, with the PTO. The criterion against which the performance of the methods is assessed is the directly obtained preference about how to establish priorities among hypothetical patients waiting for treatment. Apparently the PTO performed better than the others. We also compare three different frames for the PTO. One of them seems to predict people's preferences.