Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Yoo, Hong Il
  • Doiron, Denise

Abstract

We analyse stated preference data over nursing jobs collected from two different discrete choice experiments: a multi-profile case best-worst scaling experiment (BWS) prompting selection of the best and worst among alternative jobs, and a profile case BWS wherein the respondents choose the best and worst job attributes. The latter allows identification of additional utility parameters and is believed to be cognitively easier. Results suggest that respondents place greater value on pecuniary over non-pecuniary gains in the multi-profile case. There is little evidence that this discrepancy is induced by the extra cognitive burden of processing several profiles at once in the multi-profile case. We offer thoughts on other likely mechanisms.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629613001288
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 32 (2013)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 1166-1179

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:32:y:2013:i:6:p:1166-1179

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560

Related research

Keywords: Discrete choice experiment; Preference elicitation; Rank-ordered data; Latent class logit; Best-worst scaling; Maximum-difference model;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Terry N. Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values: Issues to Consider," PharmacoEconomics, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722.
  2. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
  3. 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.
  4. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395.
  5. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(01), April.
  6. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
  7. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
  8. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
  9. N. Flynn, Terry & J. Peters, Tim & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 34-43.
  10. van Dijk, A. & Fok, D. & Paap, R., 2007. "A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-07, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  11. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
  12. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, Spring.
  13. Patricia Kenny & Denise Doiron & Jane Hall & Deborah J Street & Kathleen Milton-Wildey & Glenda Parmenter, 2012. "The training and job decisions of nurses: the first year of a longitudinal study investigating nurse recruitment and retention. CHERE Working Paper 2012/02," Working Papers 2012/02, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  14. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
  15. Mylene Lagarde, 2013. "Investigating Attribute Non‐Attendance And Its Consequences In Choice Experiments With Latent Class Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 554-567, 05.
  16. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
  17. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
  18. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
  19. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  20. Hole, Arne Risa, 2011. "A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 203-205, March.
  21. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
  22. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401.
  23. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
  24. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, 02.
  25. Keith M. Marzilli Ericson & Andreas Fuster, 2011. "Expectations as Endowments: Evidence on Reference-Dependent Preferences from Exchange and Valuation Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1879-1907.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:32:y:2013:i:6:p:1166-1179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.