Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment

Health Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 273-286

  Bech, Mickael ^a   Kjaer, Trine ^a   Lauridsen, Jørgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

design of designs; design properties; discrete choice experiments; number of choice sets; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DENTAL CARE; DENTIST; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF REPORT; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 79951525959     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1587     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Banzhaf MR, Johnson R, Mathews KE,. 2001. Opt-out Alternatives and Anglers' Stated Preference. In The choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Bennett J, Blamey R, (eds). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham; 157-177.
2. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Henley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce D, Sugden J, Swanson J,. 2002. Economic Evaluation with Stated Preference Techniques, A Maunal. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham.
3. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D,. 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 14 (10): 1079-1083. (Pubitemid 41419196)
4. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J, Sørensen J,. 2007. Graded pairs comparison-does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management. Health Economics 16 (5): 513-529. (Pubitemid 46784285)
5. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Grant A,. 1998. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Economics 7 (7): 595-603. (Pubitemid 28521898)
6. Carlsson F, Martinsson P,. 2006. How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Working Papers in Economics No. 191, Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
7. Caussade S, Ortuzar JdD, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA,. 2005. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39 (7): 621-640. (Pubitemid 40306746)
8. Cummings RG, Taylor LO,. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 89 (3): 649-665.
9. Dellaert BGC, Brazell JD, Louviere JJ,. 2006. The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Marketing Letters 10 (2): 139-147.
10. Deshazo JR, Cameron TA, Saenz M,. 2004. A Test of Choice Set Misspecification Applicable to Stated Preference Methods. UCLA: Department of Public Policy.
11. Deshazo JR, 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. (Pubitemid 34973730)
12. Dhar R,. 1996. The effect of decision strategy on deciding to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 9 (4): 265-281. (Pubitemid 126694999)
13. Dhar R,. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (2): 215-231.
14. Dhar R, Nowlis SM,. 2004. To buy or not to buy: response mode effects on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 41 (4): 423-432. (Pubitemid 39665883)
15. Dhar R, Simonson I,. 2003. The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (2): 146-160. (Pubitemid 36650015)
16. Green PE, Krieger AM, Bansal P,. 1988. Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: a cautionary note. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (3): 293-300.
17. Green PE, Srinivasan V,. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing research: new developments and directions. Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 3-19.
18. Hanley N, Adamowicz W, Wright RE,. 2005. Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource and Energy Economics 27 (3): 227-234. (Pubitemid 41213598)
19. Hanley N, Wright RE, Koop G,. 2002. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland 3. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (3): 449-466. (Pubitemid 34793802)
20. Heiner RA,. 1983. The Origin of Predictable Behavior. American Economic Review 73 (4): 560-595.
21. Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J,. 1999. Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1-2): 197-221. (Pubitemid 128416651)
22. Hensher DA,. 2003. Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Institute of Transport Studies. Working Paper ITS-WP-03-08, The University of Sydney and Monash University.
23. Hensher DA,. 2004. Identifying the influence of stated choice design dimensionality on willingness to pay for travel time savings. Working Paper ITS-WP-04-12, Institute of Transport Studies, The University of Sydney and Monash University.
24. Hensher DA,. 2006. Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 7-44.
25. 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. (Pubitemid 33079930)
26. Hole AR,. 2006. Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Economics Bulletin 3 (18): 1-14.
27. Johnson FR,. 2006. Comment on 'Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment'. Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 45-50.
28. 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. (Pubitemid 27451419)
29. Johnson FR, Ruby MC, Mathews KE,. 1998. Assessing opt-out formats for discrete-choice stated preferences: results from a saltwater angling survey. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (5): 1206.
30. Kjaer T, Bech M,. 2007. Introducing cheap talk into a discrete choice experiment: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Unpublished manuscript.
31. Krinsky I, Robb AL,. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4): 715-719.
32. Kuhfeld WF,. 2005. Marketing research methods in sas experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Available from:, TS-722.
33. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M,. 1994. Efficient experimental-design with marketing-research applications. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (4): 545-557.
34. Lancsar E, Louviere JJ,. 2006. Deleting irrational responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics 15 (8): 797-811. (Pubitemid 44184131)
35. Louviere J,. 2004. Random utility theory-based stated preferences elicitation methods: application to health economics with special reference to combining sources of preference data. CenSoc Working Paper No. 04-001. Ref Type: Serial (Book, Monograph).
36. 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. (Pubitemid 33403475)
37. Louviere JJ,. 2006. What you don't know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 173-188.
38. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD,. 2000. Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
39. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G,. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (4): 350-367.
40. Maddala T, Philips KA, Johnson FR,. 2003. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Economics 12 (12): 1035-1047. (Pubitemid 38035308)
41. Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ,. 1995. Decision-making when choices are complex-a test of heiners hypothesis. Land Economics 71 (4): 500-515. (Pubitemid 26434989)
42. McFadden D,. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka P, (ed.). Academic Press: New York; 105-142.
43. Ohler T, Le A, Louviere J, Swait J,. 2000. Attribute range effects in binary response tasks. Marketing Letters 11 (3): 249-260.
44. Payne JW,. 1976. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision-making-information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2): 366-387.
45. Payne JW,. 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin 92 (2): 382-402.
46. Ratcliffe J, Longworth L,. 2002. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 18 (1): 139-144. (Pubitemid 34408536)
47. 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.
48. Ryan M, Wordsworth S,. 2000. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 47: 504-524.
49. Saelensminde K,. 2001. Inconsistent choices in Stated Choice data-use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28 (3): 269-296. (Pubitemid 32722728)
50. Sattler H, Hartmann A, Kröger S,. 2003. Number of tasks in choice-based conjoint analysis. Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing, University of Hamburg.
51. Scott A,. 2002. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (3): 383-398.
52. Skjoldborg US, Gyrd-Hansen D,. 2003. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an achilles' heel? Health Economics 12 (6): 479-491.
53. Stopher PR, Hensher DA,. 2000. Are more profiles better than fewer? Searching for parsimony and relevance in stated choice experiments. Transportation Data, Statistics, and Information Technology 1719: 165-174. (Pubitemid 32790845)
54. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ,. 2005. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (4): 459-470. (Pubitemid 43045893)
55. 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. (Pubitemid 33132708)
56. 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.
57. Swait J, Louviere J,. 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit-models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 305-314.
58. Tversky A,. 1972. Elimination by aspects-theory of choice 3. Psychological Review 79 (4): 281-299.
59. Weenig MWH, Maarleveld M,. 2002. The impact of time constraint on information search strategies in complex choice tasks. Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (6): 689-702.