Comparison of a full and partial choice set design in a labeled discrete choice experiment.
availability designs
choice task complexity
discrete choice experiments
labeled experiments
partial choice set designs
Journal
Health economics
ISSN: 1099-1050
Titre abrégé: Health Econ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9306780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
revised:
07
02
2023
received:
15
06
2022
accepted:
08
02
2023
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
8
3
2023
entrez:
7
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Labeled discrete choice experiments (DCEs) commonly present all alternatives using a full choice set design (FCSD), which could impose a high cognitive burden on respondents. In the setting of employment preferences, this study explored if a partial choice set design (PCSD) reduced cognitive burden whilst maintaining convergent validity compared with a FCSD. Respondents' preferences between the two designs were investigated. In the experimental design, labeled utility functions were rewritten into a single generic utility function using label dummy variables to generate an efficient PCSD with 3 alternatives shown in each choice task (out of 6). The DCE was embedded in a nationwide survey of 790 Australian pharmacy degree holders where respondents were presented with both a block of FCSD and PCSD tasks in random order. The PCSD's impact on error variances was investigated using a heteroscedastic conditional logit model. The convergent validity of PCSD was based on the equality of willingness-to-forgo-expected-salary estimates from Willingness-to-pay-space mixed logit models. A nested logit model was used combined with respondents' qualitative responses to understand respondents' design preferences. We show a promising future use of PCSD by providing evidence that PCSD can reduce cognitive burden while satisfying convergent validity compared to FCSD.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1284-1304Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716-723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
Anderson, D. A., & Wiley, J. B. (1992). Efficient choice set designs for estimating availability cross-effects models. Marketing Letters, 3(4), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993920
Batsell, R. R., & Polking, J. C. (1985). A new class of market share models. Marketing Science, 4(3), 177-198. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.177
Bech, M., Kjaer, T., & Lauridsen, J. (2011). Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics, 20(3), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1587
Bishop, R. C., & Boyle, K. J. (2019). Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72(2), 559-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0215-7
Blake, M. R., Lancsar, E., Peeters, A., & Backholer, K. (2019). Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store. Social Science & Medicine, 225, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.021
Bliemer, M. C. J., & Rose, J. M. (2010). Serial choice conjoint analysis for estimating discrete choice models. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Choice modelling: The state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice (pp. 137-161). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bliemer, M. C. J., & Rose, J. M. (2013). Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 58, 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.09.010
Bliemer, M. C. J., Rose, J., & Beck, M. (2018). Generating partial choice set designs for stated choice experiments Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on TRavel Behaviour Research Santa Barbara.
Campbell, D., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2017). Response time in online stated choice experiments: The non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1167632
Campbell, D., Mørkbak, M. R., & Olsen, S. B. (2018). The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 88, 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.10.003
Caussade, S., Ortúzar, J. d. D., Rizzi, L. I., & Hensher, D. A. (2005). Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39(7), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006
ChoiceMetrics (2018). ChoiceMetrics (version Ngene 1.2 user manual and reference guide)
Cornelsen, L., Quaife, M., Lagarde, M., & Smith, R. D. (2020). Framing and signalling effects of taxes on sugary drinks: A discrete choice experiment among households in Great Britain. Health Economics, 29(10), 1132-1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4123
de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Hol, L., Donkers, B., van Dam, L., Habbema, J. D. F., van Leerdam, M. E., Kuipers, E. J., Essink-Bot, M. L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2010). Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Value in Health, 13(2), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00670.x
DeShazo, J. R., & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(1), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1199
Franceschinis, C., Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Rose, J., Moretto, M., & Cavalli, R. (2016). Exploring the spatial heterogeneity of individual preferences for ambient heating systems. Energies, 9(6), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9060407
Franceschinis, C., Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Rose, J., Moretto, M., & Cavalli, R. (2017). Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory. Energy, 125, 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.060
Hensher, D. A. (2014). Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling (pp. 268-289). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Experimental design and chocie experiments. In Applied choice analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015a). Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Hess, S., & Rose, J. M. (2012). Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? Transportation, 39(6), 1225-1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9394-9
Hess, S., & Stathopoulos, A. (2013). Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach. Journal of Choice Modelling, 7, 1-12.
Hess, S., & Train, K. (2017). Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. Journal of Choice Modelling, 23, 1-8.
Hess, S., Rose, J. M., & Polak, J. (2010). Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(7), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.04.008
Janssen, E. M., Marshall, D. A., Hauber, A. B., & Bridges, J. F. P. (2017). Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: How can we assess validity and reliability? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 17(6), 531-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1389648
Jonker, M. F., Donkers, B., de Bekker-Grob, E., & Stolk, E. A. (2019). Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 28(3), 350-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3846
Krucien, N., Sicsic, J., & Ryan, M. (2019). For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health. Health Economics, 28(4), 572-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3869
Lazari, A. G., & Anderson, D. A. (1994). Designs of discrete choice set experiments for estimating both attribute and availability cross effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152224
Louviere, J. J., Carson, R. T., Burgess, L., Street, D., & Marley, A. A. J. (2013). Sequential preference questions factors influencing completion rates and response times using an online panel. Journal of Choice Modelling, 8, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.009
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Designs of choice experiments. In Stated choice methods analysis and applications (pp. 115-117). Cambridge University Press.
Louviere, J. J., Islam, T., Wasi, N., Street, D., & Burgess, L. (2008). Designing discrete choice experiments: Do optimal designs come at a price? Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1086/586913
Luyten, J., Tubeuf, S., & Kessels, R. (2022). Rationing of a scarce life-saving resource: Public preferences for prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination. Health Economics, 31(2), 342-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4450
Malhotra, N. K. (2017). Marketing research: An applied approach (5th ed.). Pearson.
McKenzie, J., Crosby, P., Cox, J., & Collins, A. (2019). Experimental evidence on demand for "on-demand" entertainment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 161, 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.017
Meißner, M., Oppewal, H., & Huber, J. (2017). How many options? Behavioral responses to two versus five alternatives per choice.
Orme, B. (2005). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research (1st). Research Publishers, LLC.
Raghovarao, D., & Wiley, J. B. (1986). Testing competing effects amonh soft drinks brands. In C. E. McCullough (Ed.), Statistical design: Theory and practice: Proceedings of a conference in honor of Walter T. Federer (pp. 161-176). Cornell University.
Rose, J. M., Louviere, J. J., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2013). Efficient stated choice designs allowing for variable choice set sizes. Paper presented at the International Choice Modelling Conference. Australia.
Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T. J., Campbell, D., & Hensher, D. A. (2009). Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp012
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889
Soekhai, V., de Bekker-Grob, E., Ellis, A., & Vass, C. M. (2019). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics, 37(2), 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
Swait, J. (2001). A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 35(10), 903-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-2615(00)00030-8
Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001a). Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: A theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 141-167. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2941
Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001b). The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1086/321952
Thai, T., Chen, G., Lancsar, E., & Spinks, J. (2023). Pharmacy in Australia: Measuring Employment, Labour decisions and Activity (PAMELA) Survey. https://doi.org/10.26193/JHA8JM
Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. The economics of non-market goods and resources (pp. 1-16). Springer Netherlands.
Vass, C. M., & Boeri, M. (2021). Mobilising the next generation of stated-preference studies: The association of access device with choice behaviour and data quality. Patient, 14(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x. Epub 2020 Dec 23. PMID: 33355916.
Verelst, F., Kessels, R., Delva, W., Beutels, P., & Willem, L. (2019). Drivers of vaccine decision-making in south Africa: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine, 37(15), 2079-2089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.056
Verelst, F., Willem, L., Kessels, R., & Beutels, P. (2018). Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: A discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives. Social Science & Medicine, 207, 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.038
Viney, R., Savage, E., & Louviere, J. (2005). Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. Health Economics, 14(4), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.981
Yang, J.-C., Reed, S. D., Hass, S., Skeen, M. B., & Johnson, F. R. (2021). Is easier better than harder? An experiment on choice experiments for benefit-risk tradeoff preferences. Medical Decision Making, 41(2), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x20979833