IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences

  • Tara Maddala

    (Clinimetrics Research Inc., San Jose, California, USA)

  • Kathryn A. Phillips

    (University of California, San Francisco, USA)

  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Health Economics, Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina, USA)

Registered author(s):

    In conjoint analysis (CA) studies, choosing between scenarios with multiple health attributes may be demanding for respondents. This study examined whether simplifying the choice task in CA designs, by using a design with more overlap of attribute levels, provides advantages over standard minimal-overlap methods. Two experimental conditions, minimal and increased-overlap discrete choice CA designs, were administered to 353 respondents as part of a larger HIV testing preference survey. In the minimal-overlap survey, all six attribute levels were allowed to vary. In the increased-overlap survey, an average of two attribute levels were the same between each set of scenarios. We hypothesized that the increased-overlap design would reduce cognitive burden, while minimally impacting statistical efficiency. We did not find any significant improvement in consistency, willingness to trade, perceived difficulty, fatigue, or efficiency, although several results were in the expected direction. However, evidence suggested that there were differences in stated preferences. The results increase our understanding of how respondents answer CA questions and how to improve future surveys. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.798
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 12 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 12 ()
    Pages: 1035-1047

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:12:p:1035-1047
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    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. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603.
    2. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317.
    3. 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.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:12:p:1035-1047. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.