An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1035-1047

  Maddala, Tara ^a   Phillips, Kathryn A ^b   Johnson, F Reed ^c  

^a Clinimetrics Research Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; HIV testing; Preferences; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FATIGUE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; HYPOTHESIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

AIDS SERODIAGNOSIS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATA COLLECTION; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0347709953     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.798     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1681-1705.
2. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261-273.
3. Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby MC, Stieb D, De Civita P. Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decision Making 1998; 18: S57-S67.
4. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295-317.
5. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Grant A. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595-603.
6. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1530-1533.
7. Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 270-290.
8. Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, Silvers J, Neuhauser D. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care 1998; 36: AS31-AS45.
9. Farrar S, Ryan M. Reponse-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 75-79.
10. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patient's preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 340-351.
11. Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, Buxton M. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ 2000; 9: 385-395.
12. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ Lett 1998; 2: 15-21.
13. Swait J, Adamowicz W. The effect of choice complexity on random utility models: an application to combined stated and revealed preference models or tough choices: contribution or confusion? AERE "Combining stated preference data and revealed preference data to estimate the demand for and/or benefits from environmental amenities", Tahoe City, CA, June 2-4, 1996.
14. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1996.
15. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocaiton of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 1999; 9: 137-148.
16. Greene W. Econometric Analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York; 1993.
17. Huber J, Wittink D, Fiedler J, Miller R. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J Marketing Res 1993; 30: 105-114.
18. Huber J. What we have learned from 20 years of conjoint research: when to use self-explicated, graded pairs, full profiles or choice experiments. Sawtooth Software Conference, 1997.
19. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Marketing Res 1993; 30: 305-14.
20. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the 'dollars' make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decision Making 1996; 16: 288-299.
21. Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of 'attitude' and 'preference' surveys. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1659-1679.
22. Arkes H, Hammond K. Judgement and Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, 1986.