Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Issues in the Design of Discrete Choice Experiments

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thorndike EL. Valuations of certain pains, deprivations, and frustrations. Pedagog Semin J Genet Psychol. 1937;51(2):227–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thurstone LL. The method of paired comparisons for social values. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1927;21:384–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arrow KJ. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev. 1963;53(5):941–73.

    Google Scholar 

  5. David HA. The method of paired comparisons. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gonzalez JM, Johnson FR, Levitan B, Noel R, Peay H. Symposium title: preference evidence for regulatory decisions. Patient. 2018;11(5):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Flynn TN, Yoo HI, Magidson J, Oppe M. Key issues and potential solutions for understanding healthcare preference heterogeneity free from patient-level scale confounds. Patient. 2018;11(5):463–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook RD, Nachtsheim CJ. A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D-optimal designs. Technometrics. 1980;22(3):315–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meyer RK, Nachtsheim CJ. The coordinate-exchange algorithm for constructing exact optimal experimental designs. Technometrics. 1995;37(1):60–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasi N. The Generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Scarpa R, Rose JM. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2008;52(3):253–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanninen B. Optimal design of choice experiments for non-market valuation. In: Stated preference: what do we know? Where do we go?. Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC; 2000.

  16. Atkinson AC, Donev AN. Optimum experimental designs. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rummel M, Kim TM, Aversa F, Brugger W, Capochiani E, Plenteda C, et al. Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab). Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):836–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Erdem S, Campbell D, Hole AR. Accounting for attribute-level non-attendance in a health choice experiment: does it matter? Health Econ. 2014;24(7):773–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hole AR, Norman R, Viney R. Response patterns in health state valuation using endogenous attribute attendance and latent class analysis. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):212–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jonker MF, Donkers B, De Bekker-Grob EW, Stolk EA. The effect of level overlap and color coding on attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2018;21(7):767–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Louviere JJ, Islam T, Wasi N, Street D, Burgess L. Designing discrete choice experiments: do optimal designs come at a price? J Consum Res. 2008;35(2):360–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grossman H, Schwabe R. Design for discrete choice experiments. In: Dean A, Morris M, Stufken J, Bingham D, editors. Handbook of design and analysis of experiments. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Choice Metrics Pty Ltd. Ngene user manual and reference guide (version 1.2). 2018. http://www.choice-metrics.com/NgeneManual120.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  25. Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Costa DSJ, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, Viney R. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Janssen EM, Marshall DA, Hauber AB, Bridges JFP. Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(6):531–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal. 2008;15:87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces. 2001;31(3):S56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Richard Norman

  2. University of Southern Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Benjamin M. Craig

  3. Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Paul Hansen

  4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Marcel F. Jonker

  5. Erasmus Choice Modeling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marcel F. Jonker

  6. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marcel F. Jonker

  7. Centre for Business Intelligence and Data Analytics, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    John Rose

  8. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Deborah J. Street & Brendan Mulhern

Authors
  1. Richard Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin M. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel F. Jonker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deborah J. Street
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brendan Mulhern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Norman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No funding was received for the writing of this commentary. RN, DS, BMC, MFJ and BM have no potential conflicts of interest. JR is a co-developer of Ngene. PH is a co-developer of 1000minds.

Additional information

This article is part of the topical collection on ‘‘From the International Academy of Health Preference Research’’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Norman, R., Craig, B.M., Hansen, P. et al. Issues in the Design of Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient 12, 281–285 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0346-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0346-0

Search

Navigation