IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v20y2011i3p273-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mickael Bech
  • Trine Kjaer
  • Jørgen Lauridsen

Abstract

Optimising the design of discrete choice experiments (DCE) involves maximising not only the statistical efficiency, but also how the nature and complexity of the experiment itself affects model parameters and variance. The present paper contributes by investigating the impact of the number of DCE choice sets presented to each respondent on response rate, self-reported choice certainty, perceived choice difficulty, willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) estimates, and response variance. A sample of 1053 respondents was exposed to 5, 9 or 17 choice sets in a DCE eliciting preferences for dental services. Our results showed no differences in response rates and no systematic differences in the respondents' self‐reported perception of the uncertainty of their DCE answers. There were some differences in WTP estimates suggesting that estimated preferences are to some extent context‐dependent, but no differences in standard deviations for WTP estimates or goodness‐of‐fit statistics. Respondents exposed to 17 choice sets had somewhat higher response variance compared to those exposed to 5 choice sets, indicating that cognitive burden may increase with the number of choice sets beyond a certain threshold. Overall, our results suggest that respondents are capable of managing multiple choice sets – in this case 17 choice sets – without problems. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:273-286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1587
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. Tauras, 2005. "Can public policy deter smoking escalation among young adults?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 771-784.
    2. Frank J. Chaloupka & Michael Grossman & John A. Tauras, 1996. "Public Policy and Youth Smokeless Tobacco Use," NBER Working Papers 5524, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Chaloupka, Frank J. & Warner, Kenneth E., 2000. "The economics of smoking," Handbook of Health Economics,in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 29, pages 1539-1627 Elsevier.
    4. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.039727_8 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hana Ross & Frank J. Chaloupka, 2004. "The Effect of Public Policies and Prices on Youth Smoking," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 796-815, April.
    6. C Czart & RL Pacula & RJ Chaloupka & H Wechsler, 2001. "The Impact Of Prices And Control Policies On Cigarette Smoking Among College Students," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(2), pages 135-149, April.
    7. Ling, P M & Glantz, S A, 2004. "Tobacco industry research on smoking cessation - Recapturing young adults and other recent quitters," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt2t823095, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    8. Ong, Michael MD, Ph.D. & Alamar, Benjamin Ph.D. & Glantz, Stanton A. Ph.D., 2003. "Health and Economic Effects of Two Proposals to Increase the California State Cigarette Excise Tax," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt90v1675f, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    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. Pfarr, Christian, 2012. "Meltzer-Richard and social mobility hypothesis: revisiting the income-redistribution nexus using German choice data," MPRA Paper 43325, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    3. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Aanesen, Margrethe & Navrud, Ståle, 2016. "Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 50-61.
    4. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    6. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    7. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.
    8. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    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.
    10. Hansen, Fredrik & Anell, Anders & Gerdtham, Ulf-G & Lyttkens, Carl Hampus, 2013. "The Future of Health Economics: The Potential of Behavioral and Experimental Economics," Working Papers 2013:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    11. Andrew Clark & Claudia Senik & Katsunori Yamada, 2013. "The Joneses in Japan: Income Comparisons and Financial Satisfaction," ISER Discussion Paper 0866, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    12. 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;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 4(4), pages 267-275, December.
    13. Dekker, T. & Koster, P.R. & Brouwer, R., 2012. "Changing with the tide: Semi-parametric estimation of preference dynamics," Serie Research Memoranda 0005, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    14. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    16. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    17. Axel Mühlbacher & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 253-266, June.
    18. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Ulrich, Volker, 2013. "You can't always get what you want - East and West Germans' attitudes and preferences regarding the welfare state," MPRA Paper 47240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Axel C. Mühlbacher & John F. P. Bridges & Susanne Bethge & Ch.-Markos Dintsios & Anja Schwalm & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Matthias Nübling, 2017. "Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 155-165, March.
    20. Poulos, Christine & Yang, Jui-Chen & Patil, Sumeet R. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu & Wood, Siri & Goodyear, Lorelei & Gonzalez, Juan Marcos, 2012. "Consumer preferences for household water treatment products in Andhra Pradesh, India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 738-746.
    21. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    22. 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.
    23. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2014. "Identifying latent interest-groups: An analysis of heterogeneous preferences for income-redistribution," MPRA Paper 58823, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid, 2016. "Redistribution through social health insurance: evidence on citizen preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(5), pages 611-628, June.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:273-286. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.