IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i2d10.1007_s40271-021-00541-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Matthew Craig

    (University of South Florida)

  • Kim Rand

    (Akershus University Hospital
    Maths in Health B.V.)

  • John D. Hartman

    (University of West Florida)

Abstract

Background Stated preference research currently lacks a form of evidence that is well suited for small samples. A preference path is a sequence of two or more choices showing the evolution of an object following an adaptive process. Objectives The aims were to introduce preference paths and their kaizen tasks and to demonstrate how to analyze their evidence using a small sample. Methods Twenty respondents were assigned the same 16 profiles generated from an orthogonal array based on the five attributes of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system. Each kaizen task began with an opt-out paired comparison (i.e., choosing between the initial 10-year profile and the opt-out “dying immediately”), followed by choosing three changes, and ended with a second paired comparison (final profile versus opt-out) if the respondent chose opt-out initially. By maximum likelihood with respondent clusters, we estimated the 20 main effects using conditional logit and Zermelo–Bradley–Terry (ZBT) specifications. Results Apart from demonstrating heterogeneity and profile effects, all main effect estimates were non-negative, and most were significant (15 for logit and all 20 for ZBT; p value

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00541-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00541-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00541-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00541-z?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    2. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    3. Caroline M. Vass & Marco Boeri, 2021. "Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 55-63, January.
    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. Chris Sampson & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2024. "Is anchoring at ‘dead’ a theoretical requirement for health state valuation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(9), pages 1929-1935, September.

    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. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    3. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    4. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    5. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    6. Florian Englmaier & Arno Schmöller, 2008. "Reserve Price Formation in Online Auctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2374, CESifo.
    7. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    9. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard & Jason Shogren, 2013. "On the origin of the WTA–WTP divergence in public good valuation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 431-437, March.
    10. Gökçe Esenduran & James A. Hill & In Joon Noh, 2020. "Understanding the Choice of Online Resale Channel for Used Electronics," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(5), pages 1188-1211, May.
    11. Graves Philip E., 2012. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Biases Understating Net Benefits," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-25, August.
    12. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    13. Bengt Kristrom & Pere Riera, 1996. "Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 45-55, January.
    14. AKA, Bedia François, 2016. "Quantitative Impacts Of Basic Income Grant On Income Distribution In Cote D’Ivoire: Time To Change Our Societies," Revista Galega de Economía, University of Santiago de Compostela. Faculty of Economics and Business., vol. 25(1), pages 159-170.
    15. Murat Isik, 2004. "Does Uncertainty Affect the Divergence between WTP and WTA Measures?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7.
    16. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    17. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    18. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    19. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    20. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00541-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.