Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1738-1753

  Lancsar, Emily ^a   Louviere, Jordan ^b   Flynn, Terry ^c  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attribute impact; Best worst attribute scaling; Choice experiments; Partial log likelihood analysis; Welfare measurement

Indexed keywords

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HEALTH EXPENDITURE; PROBABILITY; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

ARTICLE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT PLANNING;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 33947223015     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anderson N.H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgement. Psychological Review 77 (1970) 153-170
2. Anderson N.H. Methods of information integration theory (1982), Academic Press, New York
3. Burgess L., and Street D.J. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 134 (2005) 288-301
4. Coast J., Salisbury C., de Berker D., Noble A., Horrocks S., Peters T., et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. British Journal of Dermatology 155 (2006) 387-392
5. Cohen, S. (2003). Maximum difference scaling: improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. In Sawtooth software conference proceedings, Sequim, WA.
6. Cohen, S., & Neira, L. (2003). Measuring preference for product benefits across countries: Overcoming scale usage bias with maximum difference scaling. In ESOMAR Latin America conference proceedings, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
7. Crouch G.I., and Louviere J.J. The determinants of conventions site selection: A logistic choice model from experimental data. Journal of Travel Research 43 (2004) 118-130
8. Finn A., and Louviere J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11 1 (1992) 12-25
9. Fishbein M., and Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (1975), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
10. Flynn T., Louviere J., Peters T., and Coast J. Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 26 (2007) 171-189
11. Gyrd-Hansen D., and Søgaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Economics 10 7 (2001) 617-634
12. Hall J., Kenny P., King M., Louviere J., Viney R., and Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Economics 11 (2002) 457-465
13. Karlstrom, A. (2000). Non-linear value functions in random utility econometrics. In Ninth IATBR travel behaviour conference, Australia.
14. Keeney R.C., and Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs (1976), Wiley, New York
15. Lancsar, E. (2002). Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments. CHERE Discussion Paper No. 48, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology, Sydney.
16. Lancsar, E., & Donaldson, C. (2004). The importance of the indirect utility function and marginal utility of income in the derivation of welfare measures from discrete choice experiments. In European conference of health economists. London.
17. Lancsar, E., & Donaldson, C. (2005). A method to derive welfare measures from DCEs with non constant marginal utility of income. In International health economics association conference, Barcelona, Spain.
18. Lancsar E., and Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Economics Letters 13 9 (2004) 901-907
19. Louviere J. Analysing decision making metric conjoint analysis (1988), Sage Publications, Newbury Park
20. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: A review of theory methods recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22 1 (1988) 93-119
21. Louviere J., Street D., Carson R., Ainslie A., Deshazo J.R., Cameron T., et al. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Letters 13 3 (2002) 177-193
22. Louviere, J. J., Burgess, L., Street, D. J., & Marley, A. A. J. (2004). Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. CenSoC Working Paper Series 04-005. Sydney: Centre for the Study of Choice, Faculty of Business, University of Technology.
23. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated choice methods analysis and application (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Louviere, J. J., & Islam, T. (2004). A comparison of importance weights/measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. CenSoC Working Paper, University of Technology, Sydney.
25. Lynch J. Uniqueness issues in the decompositional modeling of multiattribute overall evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (1985) 1-19
26. Marley A., and Louviere J. Some probabilistic models of best, worse and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 19 (2005) 464-480
27. McFadden D. Computing willingness to pay in random utility models. In: Moore J., Riezman R., and Melvin J. (Eds). Trade, theory and econometrics: Essays in Honour of John S. Chipman (1999), Routledge, London 253-274
28. McIntosh, E., & Louviere, J. (2002). Separating weight and scale value: An exploration of best-attribute scaling in health economics. In Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Brunel University.
29. Ohler T., Le A., Louviere J.J., and Swait J. Attribute range effects in binary response tasks. Marketing Letters 11 3 (2000) 249-260
30. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Science & Medicine 48 4 (1999) 535-546
31. Ryan M., and Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 47 (2000) 504-524
32. Scott A. Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001) 329-347
33. Shanteau, J. (1980). The concept of weight in judgement and decision making-a review and some unifying proposals. Centre for Research and Judgement and Policy, Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
34. Small K., and Rosen H. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49 1 (1981) 105-130
35. Street D.J., Burgess L., and Louviere J. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal states choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 459-470
36. Szeinbach S., Barnes J., McGhan W., Murawski M., and Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Information Journal 33 (1999) 849-858
37. Train K.E. Discrete choice methods with simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
38. Williams H. On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefits. Environment and Planning A 9 (1971) 285-344