Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force

Value in Health

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 3-13

  Johnson, F Reed ^a   Lancsar, Emily ^b   Marshall, Deborah ^c   Kilambi, Vikram ^a   Mühlbacher, Axel ^d,e   Regier, Dean A ^f   Bresnahan, Brian W ^g   Kanninen, Barbara ^h   Bridges, John F P ⁱ  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Hochschule Neubrandenburg   (Germany)

^f BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h BK Econometrics LLC   (United States)

ⁱ JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

conjoint analysis; discrete choice experiment; experimental design; stated preferences

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COGNITIVE DEFECT; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DISEASE SEVERITY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MIGRAINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; SAMPLE; SAMPLE SIZE; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL MODEL; STUDY DESIGN; UNCERTAINTY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84872731697     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. J.F.P. Bridges, A.B. Hauber, and D. Marshall Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force Value Health 14 2011 403 413
2. F.R. Johnson, and C. Mansfield Survey-design and analytical strategies for better healthcare stated-choice studies Patient 1 2008 299 307
3. J. Bridges Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2 2003 213 224
4. J. Bridges, E. Onukwugha, and F.R. Johnson Patient preference methods - a patient centered evaluation paradigm ISPOR CONNECTIONS 13 2007 4 7
5. S.L. Szeinbach, S.E. Harpe, and T. Flynn Understanding conjoint analysis applications in health ISPOR CONNECTIONS 17 2011 8 11
6. Marshall DBJ, Hauber AB, Cameron R, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 2010;3:249-56.
7. D.A. Marshall, F.R. Johnson, and N.A. Kulin Comparison of physician and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a discrete choice experiment Value Health 10 2007 A346
8. B.K. Orme Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research 2nd ed. 2010 Research Publishers LLC Madison
9. M. Ryan, and K. Gerard Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2 2003 55 64
10. F. Carlsson, and P. Martinsson Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics Health Econ 12 2003 281 294
11. J.J. Louviere, and E. Lancsar Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future Health Econ Policy Law 4 2009 527 546
12. R. Viney, E. Savage, and J. Louviere Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care Health Econ 14 2005 349 362
13. D.J. Street, L.B. Burgess, and R.C. Viney Designing discrete choice experiments for health care M. Ryan, K. Gerard, M. Amaya-Amaya, Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care 2008 Springer Dordrecht
14. J.J. Louviere, T. Flynn, and R. Carson Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis J Choice Model 3 2010 57 72
15. Kuhfeld WF. Experimental design: efficiency, coding, and choice designs. 2010. Available from: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010c.pdf. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
16. D.J. Street, and L. Burgess The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods 2007 Wiley Hoboken
17. E. Lancsar, and J. Louviere Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 15 2006 797 811
18. E. Lancsar, and J. Louviere Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide Pharmacoeconomics 26 2008 661 677
19. D.A. Hensher, J.M. Rose, and W.H. Greene Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
20. J. Louviere, J. Swait, and D. Hensher Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
21. F.R. Johnson, B. Kanninen, and M. Bingham Experimental design for stated-choice studies B. Kanninen, Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice 2006 Springer Dordrecht
22. B. Kanninen Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments J Mark Res 39 2002 214 227
23. D. Raghavarao, J.B. Wiley, and P. Chitturi Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Models and Designs 1st ed. 2011 Taylor and Frances Group Boca Raton
24. A. Finn, and J.J. Louviere Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety J Public Policy Mark 11 1992 12 25
25. T.N. Flynn Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10 2010 259 267
26. T.N. Flynn, J.J. Louviere, and T.J. Peters Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it J Health Econ 26 2007 171 189
27. J.J. Louviere, and T.N. Flynn Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia Patient 3 2010 275 283
28. J.M. Rose, M.C.J. Bliemer, and D.A. Hensher Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives Transp Res Part B Methodol 42 2008 395 406
29. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice studies. 2005. Available from: http://ws.econ.usyd.edu.au/itls/wp- archive/itls-wp-05-08.pdf. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
30. M.C.J. Bliemer, J.M. Rose, and D.A. Hensher Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models Transp Res Part B Methodol 43 2009 19 35
31. T. Maddala, K.A. Phillips, and F.R. Johnson An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences Health Econ 12 2003 1035 1047
32. Johnson FR, Yang J-C, Mohamed AF. In defense of imperfect experimental designs: statistical efficiency and measurement error in choice-format conjoint analysis. In: Proceedings of 2012 Sawtooth Software Conference. Orlando, FL, March 2012.
33. Lancsar E. Discrete choice experimental design for alternative specific choice models: an application exploring preferences for drinking water [Invited paper]. Presented at: the Design of Experiments in Healthcare Conference, Isaac Newton Institute of Mathematical Science, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2011.
34. Discrete Choice Experiments [computer software]. Sydney: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, 2007. Available from: http://crsu.science.uts.edu.au/choice. [Accessed April 20, 2012].
35. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Ngene. Available from: http://www.choice-metrics. com/download.html. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
36. Sawtooth Software [computer software]. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, 2009.
37. Gauss [computer software]. Gauss 8.0. Black Diamond: Aptech Systems, Inc., 2011.
38. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS. 2010. Available from: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdf. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
39. Sawtooth Software. On Interaction Effects and CBC Designs. Sequim: Sawtooth Solutions, 1998. Available from: www.sawtoothsoftware.com/education/ss/ ss8.shtml. [Accessed April 20, 2012].
40. J. Hall, P. Kenny, and M. King Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination Health Econ 11 2001 457 465
41. W.F. Kuhfeld, M. Garratt, and R.D. Tobias Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications J Mark Res 31 1994 545 557
42. Z. Sándor, and M. Wedel Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs J Mark Res 38 2001 430 444
43. Z. Sándor, and M. Wedel Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs J Mark Res 42 2005 210 218
44. M.C.J. Bliemer, and J.M. Rose Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations Transp Res Part B Methodol 44 2010 720 734
45. A.S. Fowkes, and M. Wardman The design of stated preference travel choice experiments J Transport Econ Policy 13 1988 27 44
46. A.S. Fowkes, M. Wardman, and DGP Holden Non-orthogonal stated preference design Proceed PTRC Summer Ann Meet 1993 91 97
47. G.J. Hahn, and S.S. Shapiro Statistical Models in Engineering 1967 Wiley New York
48. SPSS [computer software]. Chicago: SPSS, 2008.
49. Sloane NJ. A library of orthogonal arrays. 2003. Available from: http://www2.research.att.com/∼njas/oadir. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
50. Kuhfeld W.F. Orthogonal arrays. Available from: http://support.sas.com/ techsup/technote/ts723.html. [Accessed April 20, 2012].
51. R.D. Cook, and C.J. Nachtsheim A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact d-optimal designs Technometrics 22 1980 315 324
52. V.V. Fedorov Theory of Optimal Experiments 1972 Academic Press New York
53. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Available from: http://support.sas.com/techsup/ technote/mr2010e.pdf. [Accessed April 25, 2012].
54. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why. In: Podium presentation presented at the 3rd Conjoint Analysis in Health Conference. Newport Beach, CA, October 5-8, 2010.
55. Z. Sándor, and M. Wedel Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models Mark Sci 21 2002 455 475
56. J. Huber, and K.B. Zwerina The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs J Mark Res 33 1996 307 317
57. R. Kessels, B. Jones, and P. Goos An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs J Bus Econ Stat 27 2009 279 291
58. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Designing efficient data for stated choice experiments [poster]. Presented at: the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research. Kyoto, Japan, August 16-20, 2006.
59. S.R. Jaeger, and J.M. Rose Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: a case study Food Qual Prefer 19 2008 539 564
60. R. Scarpa, and J.M. Rose Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why Aust J Agricult Res Econ 52 2008 253 282
61. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide, Australia; 2012.