IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v3y2010i4p209-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility of Using Modified Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Importance Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

Background: Prior practical experience in conducting adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) surveys has demonstrated that many subjects have difficulty understanding the ‘importance’ questions. Objective: To develop a modified version of ACA importance questions. Methods: Modified ACA importance questions composed of two tasks were developed and tested in a pilot study of patients with knee pain. In the first, respondents were presented with the list of attributes and asked to choose which they considered the most important. In the second, they were asked to rate the importance of the remaining attributes relative to the most important one on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Consecutive patients with knee pain, followed at a hospital-based Bone and Joint Clinic, were randomized to complete the original or modified version of the ACA survey. The two versions were identical except for the importance questions. The ACA survey included six attributes: pain, energy, route of administration, stomach upset, bleeding ulcer and cost. Each attribute contained three levels, all of which had a natural order except for route of administration. As this was a pilot study, we present descriptive statistics only. Results: A total of 49 patients were recruited; 24 completed the original version and 25 completed the modified version. Subjects felt that bar graphs illustrating the relative importance were more accurate for the modified version of ACA. The proportion of subjects for which the most important attribute chosen on a card-sorting task matched that generated by ACA was greater for the modified than for the original version (48% vs 29%). The proportion of subjects for which the treatment option chosen on a card-sorting task matched that predicted by ACA was also greater for the modified than for the original version (80% vs 75%). Subjects used a greater number of points to rate the importance of attributes on the modified version of ACA (mean±SD=3.4±0.9) than on the original version (mean± SD=2.7±1.0). Conclusions: The modified version of the ACA importance questions appears to perform as well as or better than the original version. Use of a simplified set of ACA importance questions is a reasonable alternative for investigators interested in using ACA as a decision-support tool in clinical practice. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Liana Fraenkel, 2010. "Feasibility of Using Modified Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Importance Questions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 209-215, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:209-215
    DOI: 10.2165/11318820-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11318820-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11318820-000000000-00000?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. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    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. 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.

    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. Shelley Farrar & Mandy Ryan, 1999. "Response‐ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 75-79, February.
    2. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    3. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    5. G. Salkeld & M. Ryan & L. Short, 2000. "The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 267-270, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    8. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    9. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    10. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:162-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Brett Hauber & F. Johnson & Cheryl Coon, 2010. "Patient Preferences and Linear Scoring Rules for Patient-Reported Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 217-227, December.
    13. Jens Hougaard & Tue Tjur & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 409-417, August.
    14. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2019. "The demand for season of birth," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 707-723, August.
    15. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    16. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    17. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Loss Aversion: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Health-Care Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 3238, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    19. Einat Neuman & Shoshona Neuman, 2008. "Reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion: A discrete choice experiment in the health-care sector," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 162-173, February.
    20. Mandy Ryan & Cristina Ubach, 2003. "Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 407-410.
    21. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).

    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:3:y:2010:i:4:p:209-215. 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.