Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues

Health Economics Review

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-12

  Mühlbacher, Axel C ^a   Zweifel, Peter ^b   Kaczynski, Anika ^a   Johnson, F Reed ^c  

^a Hochschule Neubrandenburg   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Best Worst Scaling; Choice Experiments; Discrete Choice Experiments; MaxDiff Scaling; Stated Preferences

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BEST WORST SCALING; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SCIENCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEASUREMENT; MICROECONOMIC THEORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 84971343269     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21911991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13561-015-0077-z     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Mühlbacher A, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental Measurement of Preferences in Health Care Using Best-Worst Scaling (BWS): Overview. Health Economics Review. 2016.
2. Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Özdemir S, Marshall DA, Phillips KA. How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20(3):323–30.
3. Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing Experimental Designs for Discrete-Choice Experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
4. Mc Neil Vroomen J, Zweifel P. Preferences for Health Insurance and Health Status: Does it Matter Whether you are Dutch or German? European Journal of Health Economics. 2011;12:87–95.
5. Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten [Measuring Preferences in Healthcare: Introduction to Discrete-Choice Experiments]. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement. 2013;18(4):159–72.
6. Telser H, Zweifel P. Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction. Appl Econ. 2007;39(1):69–78.
7. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care: NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360.
8. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.
9. Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press; 1971.
10. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):901–7. doi:10.1002/hec.870.
11. Swait J, Louviere J. The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models. J Mark Res. 1993;30(3):305–14. doi:10.2307/3172883.
12. Louviere JJ, Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best–worst scaling. J Bus Res. 2008;61(9):903–11.
13. Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N. The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421. doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0508.
14. Krosnick JA, Fabrigar LR. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. Survey measurement and process quality. Vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997. p. 141–64.
15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
16. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JBEM. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J Mark Res. 2001; 38(2):143–56.
17. Krosnick JA. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5(3):213–36.
18. Sato Y. How to Measure Human Perception in Survey Questionnaires. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process. 2009;1(2):64–82.
19. Alwin DF, Krosnick JA. The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opin Q. 1985;49(4):535–52.
20. Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res. 1992;24(2):149–64.
21. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported? Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.
22. Sato Y. Comparison between multiple‐choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. Int Trans Oper Res. 2004;11(1):77–86.
23. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econ Soc. 1979;47(2):263–91.
24. Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrigthsman LS, editors. Measures of personality ans social psychological. Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press;1991. p. 17–59.
25. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley A. Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
26. Hess S, Daly A. Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
27. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.
28. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Estimating individual level discrete choice models and welfare measures using best-worst choice experiments and sequential best-worst MNL. University of Technology, Centre for the Study of Choice (Censoc). 2008:1–24.
29. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.
30. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76:74–82.
31. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.
32. Marley AAJ, editor. The best-worst method for the study of preferences: theory and application 2009: Working paper. Department of Psychology. University of Victoria. Victoria (Canada).
33. Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Market. 1992;11(2):12–25.
34. Cohen S, Orme B. What’s your preference? Mark Res. 2004;16:32–7.
35. Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J Bus Ethics. 2007;70(3):299–326.
36. Garver MS, Williams Z, LeMay SA. Measuring the importance of attributes in logistics research. Int J Logist Manag. 2010;21(1):22–44.
37. Lee JA, Soutar GN, Louviere J. Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: The LOV example. Psychol Mark. 2007;24(12):1043–58.
38. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best–worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008;52(5):281–96.
39. Marti J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(1):87–97.
40. Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ. Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model. 2008;1(1):128–63.
41. de Bekker‐Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.
42. Coast J, Al‐Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.
43. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques Cary, NC, SAS-Institute TS-722. 2009.
44. Smith NF, Street DJ. The use of balanced incomplete block designs in designing randomized response surveys. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics. 2003;45(2):181–94.
45. Cochran WG, Cox GM. Experimental design. Hoboken, NJ: Wilex Classics Library; 1992.
46. Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series; 2000.
47. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
48. Burgess L, Street DJ. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. Stat Plan Inference. 2005;134(1):288–301.
49. Flynn T, Bilger M, Malhotra C, Finkelstein E. Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care. PharmacoEconomics. 2015:1–12. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0338-z
50. McFadden D. The choice theory approach to market research. Mark Sci. 1986;5(4):275–97.
51. McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior" in P. Zarembka Eds. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Acedemic press; 1974.
52. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. BerkeleyCambridge university press; 2002.