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

    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.