IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v7y2024i1p12-202d1341711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data

Author

Listed:
  • Sasanka Adikari

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA)

  • Norou Diawara

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA)

Abstract

Discrete choice models (DCMs) are applied in many fields and in the statistical modelling of consumer behavior. This paper focuses on a form of choice experiment, best–worst scaling in discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and the transition probability of a choice of a consumer over time. The analysis was conducted by using simulated data (choice pairs) based on data from Flynn’s (2007) ‘Quality of Life Experiment’. Most of the traditional approaches assume the choice alternatives are mutually exclusive over time, which is a questionable assumption. We introduced a new copula-based model (CO-CUB) for the transition probability, which can handle the dependent structure of best–worst choices while applying a very practical constraint. We used a conditional logit model to calculate the utility at consecutive time points and spread it to future time points under dynamic programming. We suggest that the CO-CUB transition probability algorithm is a novel way to analyze and predict choices in future time points by expressing human choice behavior. The numerical results inform decision making, help formulate strategy and learning algorithms under dynamic utility in time for best–worst DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sasanka Adikari & Norou Diawara, 2024. "Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:12-202:d:1341711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    2. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    3. Genest, Christian & Nešlehová, Johanna, 2007. "A Primer on Copulas for Count Data," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 475-515, November.
    4. D'Elia, Angela & Piccolo, Domenico, 2005. "A mixture model for preferences data analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 917-934, June.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Richard Bellman, 1954. "Some Applications of the Theory of Dynamic Programming---A Review," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 275-288, August.
    7. Jose Blanchet & Guillermo Gallego & Vineet Goyal, 2016. "A Markov Chain Approximation to Choice Modeling," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 886-905, August.
    8. Eugene A. Feinberg & Adam Shwartz, 1994. "Markov Decision Models with Weighted Discounted Criteria," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 152-168, February.
    9. Richard Bellman, 1954. "On some applications of the theory of dynamic programming to logistics," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 141-153, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Xiaoyue Li & John M. Mulvey, 2023. "Optimal Portfolio Execution in a Regime-switching Market with Non-linear Impact Costs: Combining Dynamic Program and Neural Network," Papers 2306.08809, arXiv.org.
    4. Mahmoud Mahfouz & Angelos Filos & Cyrine Chtourou & Joshua Lockhart & Samuel Assefa & Manuela Veloso & Danilo Mandic & Tucker Balch, 2019. "On the Importance of Opponent Modeling in Auction Markets," Papers 1911.12816, arXiv.org.
    5. Guillermo Gallego & Haengju Lee, 2020. "Callable products with dependent demands," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(3), pages 185-200, April.
    6. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    8. Dawei Chen & Fangxu Mo & Ye Chen & Jun Zhang & Xinyu You, 2022. "Optimization of Ramp Locations along Freeways: A Dynamic Programming Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    10. Kameng Nip & Zhenbo Wang & Zizhuo Wang, 2021. "Assortment Optimization under a Single Transition Choice Model," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2122-2142, July.
    11. Harrold, Daniel J.B. & Cao, Jun & Fan, Zhong, 2022. "Data-driven battery operation for energy arbitrage using rainbow deep reinforcement learning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    12. Wadi Khalid Anuar & Lai Soon Lee & Hsin-Vonn Seow & Stefan Pickl, 2021. "A Multi-Depot Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Road Capacity and Reduced Two-Stage Stochastic Integer Linear Programming Models for Rollout Algorithm," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-44, July.
    13. Widmar, Nicole J. Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth S. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Acharya, Lalatendu, 2016. "Health Consciousness and Consumer Preferences for Holiday Turkey Attributes," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(2), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    15. Shipra Agrawal & Vashist Avadhanula & Vineet Goyal & Assaf Zeevi, 2019. "MNL-Bandit: A Dynamic Learning Approach to Assortment Selection," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1453-1485, September.
    16. Matthias Breuer & David Windisch, 2019. "Investment Dynamics and Earnings‐Return Properties: A Structural Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 639-674, June.
    17. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    18. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    19. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:12-202:d:1341711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.