Objectives: To assess the validity, feasibility and acceptability of standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) assessments in a multiethnic Asian population. Methods: Through in-depth interviews performed among Chinese, Malay, and Indian Singaporeans (education ≥ 6 years), we assessed validity of SG/TTO methods for eliciting health preferences by hypothesizing that 1) SG/TTO scores for three hypothetical health states (HS) would exhibit ranked order (decreasing scores with worse HS); and 2) more subjects would rate the most severe HS as worse than dead. Subjects also evaluated feasibility and acceptability of SG/TTO using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and open-ended questions. Ratings were compared using Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests or tests of proportions. Results: Validity: In 62 subjects (90% response rate), as hypothesized, SG and TTO scores exhibited ranked order with increasing HS severity (SG: 0.85, 0.08, -19.00; TTO: 0.85, 0.00, -0.18). More subjects rated the most severe HS as worse than dead (SG: 8%, 39%, 59%; TTO: 8%, 45% and 62%). Feasibility: Subjects felt SG and TTO were easy to understand (median VAS scores: 8.0 vs. 8.0, P = 0.87) and to complete (8.0 vs. 8.0, P = 0.84). Acceptability: SG and TTO were well accepted, with TTO less so than SG (median [interquartile range] offensiveness: 2.0 [0, 4.0] vs. 2.0 [0, 3.0], P = 0.045). Overall, subjects did not have a clear preference for SG/TTO (50% vs. 45%, P = 0.70). Conclusions: This study suggests the validity, feasibility and acceptability of SG and TTO for population-based HS valuation studies in a multiethnic Asian population.