IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cdiwps/halshs-00846085.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China

Author

Listed:
  • Martine Audibert

    (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - UdA - Université d'Auvergne - Clermont-Ferrand I - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Yong He

    (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - UdA - Université d'Auvergne - Clermont-Ferrand I - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jacky Mathonnat

    (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - UdA - Université d'Auvergne - Clermont-Ferrand I - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This study aims at testing the theoretical issue according to which multinomial logit (MNL) would give lower performance than a mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) in the presence of heterogeneity. To do so, we construct two samples of patients surveyed within the same regions in rural China, but of an interval of 18 years, with a difference in preference heterogeneity due to income growth and population aging. With the 1989-1993 sample, both models have predicted price effects; however with the 2004-2006 sample, unlike MMNL, MNL failed to predict price effect. The explanation is that the impact of price on choice became more heterogeneous in the later than the former sample, thus heterogeneity makes a difference between MNL and MMNL. The absence of meaningful divergences of distance effects between the two models can also be explained by the evolution of heterogeneity in distance preferences over the period. The coefficients of price and distances with MMNL are higher than with MNL, indicating stronger price and distance effects in MMNL estimations. Another advantage of MMNL is the possibility to measure the extent of heterogeneity. The findings suggest caution when interpreting estimation results with MNL if heterogeneity is deemed important.

Suggested Citation

  • Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," CERDI Working papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cdiwps:halshs-00846085
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00846085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00846085/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating variations in responsiveness to level-of-service measures in travel mode choice modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 495-507, September.
    2. Gertler, Paul & Locay, Luis & Sanderson, Warren, 1987. "Are user fees regressive? : The welfare implications of health care financing proposals in Peru," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 67-88.
    3. Patrick Royston, 2004. "Multiple imputation of missing values," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 227-241, September.
    4. Dahlberg, Matz & Eklöf, Matias, 2003. "Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational Choice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and Multinomial Probit Models," Working Paper Series 2003:9, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    5. Sahn, David E. & Stifel, David C., 2000. "Poverty Comparisons Over Time and Across Countries in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 2123-2155, December.
    6. Deon Filmer & Kinnon Scott, 2012. "Assessing Asset Indices," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(1), pages 359-392, February.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson, 2003. "The demand for intercity public transport: the case of business passengers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 41-50.
    9. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    11. Harris, Katherine M. & Keane, Michael P., 1998. "A model of health plan choice:: Inferring preferences and perceptions from a combination of revealed preference and attitudinal data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 131-157, November.
    12. Canaviri, Jose, 2007. "A Random Parameter Logit model for modeling Health Care Provider Choice in Bolivia," MPRA Paper 3263, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Christiadi & Brian Cushing, 2007. "Conditional Logit, IIA, and Alternatives for Estimating Models of Interstate Migration," Working Papers Working Paper 2007-04, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    14. Bijan J. Borah, 2006. "A mixed logit model of health care provider choice: analysis of NSS data for rural India," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(9), pages 915-932, September.
    15. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    16. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    17. Vincent van den Berg & Eric Kroes & Erik T. Verhoef, 2010. "Biases in Willingness-To-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates due to Unobserved Heterogeneity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-014/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    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. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," Working Papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    2. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.
    3. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2020. "Dealing with Demand Heterogeneity on Health Care Provider Choice – The Case of Rural China," Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 7(2), pages 258-267.
    4. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.
    5. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2020. "Dealing with Demand Heterogeneity on Health Care Provider Choice –The Case of Rural China," Post-Print halshs-02963761, HAL.
    6. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Demand with Income Growth and Population Aging in Rural China: Implications for Adjustment of the Healthcare Supply and Development," Working Papers halshs-00846088, HAL.
    7. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Demand with Income Growth and Population Aging in Rural China: Implications for Adjustment of the Healthcare Supply and Development," CERDI Working papers halshs-00846088, HAL.
    8. Martine AUDIBERT & Jacky MATHONNAT & Yong HE, 2010. "Income Growth, Price Variation and Health Care Demand: A Mixed Logit Model Applied to Tow-period Comparison in Rural China," Working Papers 201035, CERDI.
    9. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2011. "Income Growth, Price Variation and Health Care Demand: A Mixed Logit Model Applied to Tow-period Comparison in Rural China," CERDI Working papers halshs-00552192, HAL.
    10. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    15. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    16. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    17. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Phanikumar, C.V. & Maitra, Bhargab, 2006. "Modeling Willingness-to-Pay Values for Rural Bus Attributes Under Different Trip Purposes," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 45(2).
    19. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377.
    20. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2007. "Farm Animal Welfare—Testing for Market Failure," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 61-73, April.

    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:hal:cdiwps:halshs-00846085. 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: Contact - CERDI - Université Clermont Auvergne (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.