IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i2p222-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Easier Better Than Harder? An Experiment on Choice Experiments for Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Jui-Chen Yang

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Shelby D. Reed

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
    Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Steve Hass

    (H. E. Outcomes, LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Mark B. Skeen

    (Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA)

  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
    Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA)

Abstract

Objectives To test the convergent validity of simple and more complex study designs in a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment preferences. Methods Five hundred US adults with MS completed an online DCE survey. Respondents answered 8 choice questions with pairs of constructed MS treatment profiles defined by delays in problems with walking, delays in problems with cognition, thyroid disorders, and 10-y risks of kidney failure and serious brain infection (i.e., progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML]). Four hundred respondents completed choice questions using 4 levels for all attributes, except thyroid disorders with 3 levels. One hundred respondents completed choice questions using only the 2 extreme attribute levels of the 4-level version. Random-parameters logit models were used to estimate choice-model parameters. Results Respondents viewing the 4-level and 2-level versions agreed on the relative importance of the 3 most important attributes: cognition, walking, and PML. Respondents viewing the 4-level version indicated much stronger disutility for a 0% to 0.5% increase in kidney-failure risk than those viewing the 2-level version where the risk for kidney failure increased from 0% to 3%. Otherwise, utilities for other 4-level attributes were approximately linear but with significantly steeper slopes (except for cognition) than the 2-level estimates, indicating that attributes were perceived as more important as the number of levels increased. Conclusions Although the relative importance of some attributes was similar, the 2-level and 4-level versions generally failed to demonstrate convergent validity. If the study goal is attribute rankings, a 2-level version could be adequate. If goals include quantifying tradeoffs among attribute levels, more complex designs can help respondents discriminate among attribute levels. Reductions in measurement error using fewer attribute levels appear to have come at the expense of less discriminating evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jui-Chen Yang & Shelby D. Reed & Steve Hass & Mark B. Skeen & F. Reed Johnson, 2021. "Is Easier Better Than Harder? An Experiment on Choice Experiments for Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 222-232, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:222-232
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20979833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20979833
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20979833?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    2. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    3. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    6. Arentze, Theo & Borgers, Aloys & Timmermans, Harry & DelMistro, Romano, 2003. "Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 229-244, May.
    7. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    8. Jordan J. Louviere & Towhidul Islam & Nada Wasi & Deborah Street & Leonie Burgess, 2008. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 360-375, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thao Thai & Michiel Bliemer & Gang Chen & Jean Spinks & Sonja de New & Emily Lancsar, 2023. "Comparison of a full and partial choice set design in a labeled discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 1284-1304, June.

    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. Yang, Jui-Chen & Johnson, F. Reed & Kilambi, Vikram & Mohamed, Ateesha F., 2015. "Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: A meta-simulation approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 50-57.
    2. 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.
    3. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    4. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    6. Finkelstein, Eric Andrew & Ozdemir, Semra & Malhotra, Chetna & Jafar, Tazeen H. & Choong Hui Lin, Lina & Gan Shien Wen, Sheryl, 2018. "Understanding factors that influence the demand for dialysis among elderly in a multi-ethnic Asian society," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(8), pages 915-921.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    8. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    9. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.
    10. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Annette Schmeding & Ina Rudolph & Axel Mühlbacher, 2011. "Can Patients Diagnosed with Schizophrenia Complete Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Tasks?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 267-275, December.
    11. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    12. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    13. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    15. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    17. Juan Marcos González & Justin Doan & David J. Gebben & Marco Boeri & Mayer Fishman, 2018. "Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 973-986, August.
    18. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    20. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:222-232. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.