IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v50y2024ics1755534523000672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Schuster, Anne L.R.
  • Crossnohere, Norah L.
  • Campoamor, Nicola B.
  • Hollin, Ilene L.
  • Bridges, John F.P.

Abstract

Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a theory-driven choice experiment used for the prioritization of a finite number of options. Within the context of prioritization, BWS is also known as MaxDiff, BWS object case, and BWS Case 1. Now used in numerous fields, we conducted a transdisciplinary literature review of all published applications of BWS focused on prioritization to compare norms on the development, design, administration, analysis, and quality of BWS applications across fields. We identified 526 publications published before 2023 in the fields of health (n = 195), agriculture (n = 163), environment (n = 50), business (n = 50), linguistics (n = 24), transportation (n = 24), and other fields (n = 24). The application of BWS has been doubling every four years. BWS is applied globally with greatest frequency in North America (27.0%). Most studies had a clearly stated purpose (94.7%) that was empirical in nature (89.9%) with choices elicited in the present tense (90.9%). Apart from linguistics, most studies: applied at least one instrument development method (94.3%), used BWS to assess importance (63.1%), used ‘most/least’ anchors (85.7%), and conducted heterogeneity analysis (69.0%). Studies predominantly administered surveys online (58.0%) and infrequently included formal sample size calculations (2.9%). BWS designs in linguistics differed significantly from other fields regarding the average number of objects (p < 0.01), average number of tasks (p < 0.01), average number of objects per task (p = 0.03), and average number of tasks presented to participants (p < 0.01). On a 5-point scale, the average PREFS score was 3.0. This review reveals the growing application of BWS for prioritization and promises to foster new transdisciplinary avenues of inquiry.

Suggested Citation

  • Schuster, Anne L.R. & Crossnohere, Norah L. & Campoamor, Nicola B. & Hollin, Ilene L. & Bridges, John F.P., 2024. "The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:50:y:2024:i:c:s1755534523000672
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000672
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100466?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Irene Bertolami & Adriano Bisello & Marco Volpatti & Marta Carla Bottero, 2024. "Exploring Multiple Benefits of Urban and Energy Regeneration Projects: A Stakeholder-Centred Methodological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-21, June.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:50:y:2024:i:c:s1755534523000672. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.