IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v3y2010i4p257-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Cunningham
  • Ken Deal
  • Yvonne Chen

Abstract

Conjoint analysis (CA) has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health service preferences. This article examines Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (ACBC) and reviews available evidence comparing ACBC with conventional approaches to CA. ACBC surveys more closely approximate the decision-making processes that influence real-world choices. Informants begin ACBC surveys by completing a build-your-own (BYO) task identifying the level of each attribute that they prefer. The ACBC software composes a series of attribute combinations clustering around each participant’s BYO choices. During the Screener section, informants decide whether each of these concepts is a possibility or not. Probe questions determine whether attribute levels consistently included in or excluded from each informant’s Screener section choices reflect ‘Unacceptable’ or ‘Must Have’ simplifying heuristics. Finally, concepts identified as possibilities during the Screener section are carried forward to a Choice Tournament. The winning concept in each Choice Tournament set advances to the next choice set until a winner is determined. A review of randomized trials and cross-over studies suggests that, although ACBC surveys require more time than conventional approaches to CA, informants find ACBC surveys more engaging. In most studies, ACBC surveys yield lower standard errors, improved prediction of hold-out task choices, and better estimates of real-world product decisions than conventional choice-based CA surveys. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:257-273
    DOI: 10.2165/11537870-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11537870-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11537870-000000000-00000?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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    3. 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.
    4. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Lillian Kidane & Rebekah Heinzen & Colleen McCormick, 2008. "Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 273-282, October.
    5. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber, 2007. "Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Springer.
    6. Joel Huber & Bryan Orme & Richard Miller, 2007. "Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 17, pages 347-362, Springer.
    7. Venkatram Ramaswamy & Steven H. Cohen, 2007. "Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 15, pages 295-319, Springer.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    11. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    12. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    13. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2004. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments," SOI - Working Papers 0412, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Mar 2008.
    14. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Jordan Louviere & David Hensher & Joffre Swait, 2007. "Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 10, pages 167-197, Springer.
    16. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    17. Wait, Suzanne & Nolte, Ellen, 2006. "Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 149-162, April.
    18. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    19. Chinburapa, Vijit & Larson, Lon N. & Brucks, Merrie & Draugalis, JoLaine & Bootman, J.Lyle & Puto, Christopher P., 1993. "Physician prescribing decisions: The effects of situational involvement and task complexity on information acquisition and decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 1473-1482, June.
    20. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    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. Klein, Galit & Shtudiner, Zeev & Zwilling, Moti, 2021. "Uncovering gender bias in attitudes towards financial advisors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 257-273.
    2. Benedikt M. Brand & Theresa Maria Rausch & Jannika Brandel, 2022. "The Importance of Sustainability Aspects When Purchasing Online: Comparing Generation X and Generation Z," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, May.
    3. Basem Al-Omari & Joviana Farhat & Mujahed Shraim, 2023. "The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients’ Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    5. Robert H. W. Boyer & Agnieszka D. Hunka & Katherine A. Whalen, 2021. "Consumer Demand for Circular Products: Identifying Customer Segments in the Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Petrovich, Beatrice & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2019. "Beauty and the budget: A segmentation of residential solar adopters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    8. Melliger, Marc & Lilliestam, Johan, 2021. "Effects of coordinating support policy changes on renewable power investor choices in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    9. Khan, Rana Asad Javid & Thaheem, Muhammad Jamaluddin & Ali, Tauha Hussain, 2020. "Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their willingness to pay," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(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. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    3. 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, February.
    4. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    5. Axel Mühlbacher & Matthias Nübling, 2010. "Analysis of Patients’ Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 285-294, December.
    6. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    7. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.
    8. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    9. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    10. 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.
    11. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Annette Schmeding & Ina Rudolph & Axel Mühlbacher, 2011. "Can Patients Diagnosed with Schizophrenia Complete Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Tasks?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 267-275, December.
    12. Charles Cunningham & Linda Kostrzewa & Heather Rimas & Yvonne Chen & Ken Deal & Susan Blatz & Alida Bowman & Don Buchanan & Randy Calvert & Barbara Jennings, 2013. "Modeling Organizational Justice Improvements in a Pediatric Health Service," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(1), pages 45-59, March.
    13. Lee, Ungki & Kang, Namwoo & Lee, Ikjin, 2020. "Choice data generation using usage scenarios and discounted cash flow analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    14. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Heather Rimas & Heather Campbell & Ann Russell & Jennifer Henderson & Anne Matheson & Blake Melnick, 2008. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Model the Preferences of Different Patient Segments for Attributes of Patient-Centered Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 317-330, October.
    15. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    16. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    17. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    19. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    20. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.

    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:257-273. 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.