IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v59y2026ics1755534526000151.html

“It should be relevant, reliable and feasible”: Introducing FACE, an instrument for assessing the face validity of choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • de Ruijter, Annamarie
  • van Exel, Job
  • Mouter, Niek

Abstract

Face validity indicates to what extent participants are engaged in making choices; and understand and interpret the presented information as intended by its designer. It is an important but often overlooked aspect of the overall validity of choice experiments and no comprehensive instruments for assessing it are available. Improving its design potentially improves the quality of participants’ responses and the study itself, which increases the relevance and usability for policy and practice. In this study we developed and tested an instrument to assess the FAce validity of Choice Experiments (FACE) in a uniform, systematic manner. The instrument is based on 9 components identified in the literature: clarity, completeness, decision certainty, familiarity, feasibility, legibility, relevance, sensitivity, and transparency. FACE covers these components in 13 statements with 5-point Likert scales.

Suggested Citation

  • de Ruijter, Annamarie & van Exel, Job & Mouter, Niek, 2026. "“It should be relevant, reliable and feasible”: Introducing FACE, an instrument for assessing the face validity of choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:59:y:2026:i:c:s1755534526000151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2026.100609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534526000151
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2026.100609?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.

    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:59:y:2026:i:c:s1755534526000151. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.