IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v49y2023ics1755534523000374.html

Sample size selection for discrete choice experiments using design features

Author

Listed:
  • Assele, Samson Yaekob
  • Meulders, Michel
  • Vandebroek, Martina

Abstract

In discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies, selecting the appropriate sample size remains a challenge. The question of the required sample size for a DCE is addressed in the literature in two distinct approaches: a rule-of-thumb approach and an approach based on the statistical error of the parameter of interest. The former is less accurate and does not depend on the desired power and significance level, whereas the latter requires knowing the complete design which may not be known at the planning stage. This paper proposes a new rule of thumb as well as a new regression-based method that requires knowing certain design characteristics rather than the complete design and takes into account the power and significance level. We compare the sample size estimated using the proposed methods with the true required sample size based on the statistical error of the parameter of interest and the approximations given by the existing rules of thumb. The results show that both the new rule of thumb and the regression-based approach improve the magnitude and proportion of underestimation compared to the most commonly used rule of thumb of Orme. Though the proposed approaches perform in general similarly to Tang’s rule which improves Orme’s rule, they seem to do better for large settings in terms of the number of choice sets and the number of alternatives per choice set in reducing underestimation. Moreover, we have demonstrated the possibility to adapt the regression-based approaches to take into account other scenarios and choice set complexity.

Suggested Citation

  • Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2023. "Sample size selection for discrete choice experiments using design features," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:49:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000374
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000374
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100436?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    4. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    5. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    6. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    7. Zsolt Sándor & Philip Hans Franses, 2009. "Consumer price evaluations through choice experiments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 517-535, April.
    8. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    9. 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.
    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. Anna Kovalchuk, 2025. "Experimental Insights on Investment Strategies for Sustainable Growth Amid China’s Economic Uncertainty," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(2), pages 21582440251, May.
    2. Fenton, Marieke & Goodrich, Brittney K. & Penn, Jerrod, 2025. "Measuring beekeepers' economic value of contract enhancements in almond pollination agreements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    3. Savage, Scott J., 2025. "The effects of the energy star program on consumer electronics," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. Evangelinos, Christos & Tscharaktschiew, Stefan & Obermeyer, Andy, 2025. "Quantifying an Airline's brand Image: The Ryanair disutility effect," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Wu, Xinrui & Liu, Ziming & Feng, Shuyi, 2025. "Social norms alleviate the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    6. Zhang, Jingyuan & Melo, Grace, 2025. "Recognizing Non-Pecuniary Labor Benefits in Technology Adoption: Evidence from Automatic Milking Systems in U.S. Dairy Farming," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360617, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Pascale Bazoche & Valérie Angeon, 2025. "Valuing environmental attributes of food products in a polluted area: what are the preferences of Guadeloupean consumers?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 106(2), pages 167-189, October.
    8. Crispin Cooper & Ana Fredrich & Tommaso Reggiani & Wouter Poortinga, 2026. "Individual Utilities of Life Satisfaction Reveal Inequality Aversion Unrelated to Political Alignment," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 1-26, May.
    9. Kathryn Mishkin & Qixin Li & Jagadeswara Rao Earla & Jaime A. Mejia & Kim M. Hirshfield & Kathryn Krupsky & Josh Lankin & Kathleen Beusterien & Emily Mulvihill & Ryan Honomichl & Alexandra Gordon & Xi, 2026. "Factors influencing Patient Preferences for BRCA Testing and Adjuvant Therapy in HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer in the United States: Best–Worst Scaling and Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 19(2), pages 297-312, March.
    10. Made Adi Widyatmika & Pratik Badgujar & Sisir Debnath & Ankush Agrawal & Nomesh Bhojkumar Bolia, 2025. "Enhancing waste segregation through non-financial interventions: insights from a randomized controlled trial in a campus setting," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Kleffel, Philipp & Muck, Matthias, 2024. "The confusion of taste and consumption: Evidence from a stated-choice experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    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. Vishva Danthurebandara & Jie Yu & Martina Vandebroek, 2015. "Designing choice experiments by optimizing the complexity level to individual abilities," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    8. Que, Sisi & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Weidner, Nathan & Wang, Yumin, 2017. "Discrete choice experiment validation: A resource project case study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 39-50.
    9. Kessels, Roselinde, 2016. "Homogeneous versus heterogeneous designs for stated choice experiments: Ain't homogeneous designs all bad?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 2-9.
    10. Großmann, Heiko, 2019. "A practical approach to designing partial-profile choice experiments with two alternatives for estimating main effects and interactions of many two-level attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    12. Jonker, Marcel F., 2024. "Level overlap and level color coding revisited: Improved attribute attendance and higher choice consistency in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. KESSELS, Roselinde & BRADLEY, Jones & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "A comparison of partial profile designs for discrete choice experiments with an application in software development," Working Papers 2012004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    14. Jonathan Sicsic & Serge Blondel & Sandra Chyderiotis & François Langot & Judith E. Mueller, 2023. "Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 81-98, February.
    15. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    16. Nicolas Krucien & Jonathan Sicsic & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 572-586, April.
    17. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. Zhang, Rong & Zhu, Lichao, 2019. "Threshold incorporating freight choice modeling for hinterland leg transportation chain of export containers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 858-872.
    19. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    20. Vishva Danthurebandara & Martina Vandebroek & Jie Yu, 2013. "Integrated mixed logit and latent variable models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 245-259, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:eejocm:v:49:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000374. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.