Graded pairs comparison - Does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management

Health Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 513-529

  Bech, Mickael ^a   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^a   Kjær, Trine ^a   Lauriden, Jørgen ^a   Sørensen, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Discrete choice; Graded pairs comparison; Stated preference; Strength of preference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHRONIC PAIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HOME CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NURSING COMPETENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOUSE CALLS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 34249067437     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1159     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B et al. 2002. Economic Evaluation with Stated Preference Techniques, A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham.
2. Böckenholt U, Dillon WR. 1997. Modeling within-subject dependencies in ordinal paired comparison data. Psychometrika 62(3): 411-434.
3. Cattin P, Wittink DR. 1982. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. Journal of Marketing 46: 44-53.
4. Dellaert BGC, Brazell JD, Louviere JJ. 2006. The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Marketing Letters 10(2): 139-147.
5. De Palma A, Myers GM, Papageorgiou YY. 1994. Rational choice under an imperfect ability to choose. American Economic Review 84(3): 419-440.
6. Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. 1992. An empirical-comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research 29(3): 368-377.
7. Greene WH. 2002. Limdep version 8.0, Econometric Modeling Guide, vols. 1 & 2. Econometric Softwarem Inc.: New York.
8. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y. 2001. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3): S56-S73.
9. Haefele MA, Loomis JB. 2001. Improving statistical efficiency and testing robustness of conjoint marginal valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(5): 1321-1327.
10. Hensher DA, Stopher PR, Louviere JJ. 2001. An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application. Journal of Air Transport Management 7(6): 373-379.
11. Huber J. 1997. What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments. Sawtooth Software Proceeding. Available at http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/whatlrnd.pdf
12. Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, Miller R. 1993. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. Journal of Marketing Research 30(1): 105-114.
13. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. 2000. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Economics 9(4): 295-317.
14. Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. 1997. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(1): 79-99.
15. Johnston RJ, Swallow SK. 1999. Asymmetries in ordered strength of preference models: implications of focus shift for discrete-choice preference estimation. Land Economics 75: 295-310.
16. Louviere JJ. 2001. What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioral phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Research 28(3): 506-511.
17. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. 2000. Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
18. Louviere JJ, Street D, Carson R et al. 2002. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Letters 13(3): 177-193.
19. Mackenzie J. 1993. A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(3): 593-603.
20. Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ. 1995. Decision-making when choices are complex - a test of Heiners hypothesis. Land Economics 71(4): 500-515.
21. Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF. 1996. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2): 145-159.
22. Rosenberger RS, Peterson GL, Loomis JB. 2002. Applying a method of paired comparisons to measure economic values for multiple goods sets. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(1): 215.
23. Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2(1): 55-64.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Swallow SK, Opaluch JJ, Weaver TF. 2001. Strength-of-preference indicators and an ordered-response model for ordinarily dichotomous, discrete choice data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(1): 70-93.
27. Wittink DR, Cattin P. 1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing 53: 91-96.
28. Wooldridge JM. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.