Skip to main content
Log in

Designing for Attribute-Level Best-Worst Choice Experiments

  • Published:
Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using the D-optimality criterion, we show that resolution 3 fractional factorial designs perform as well as the complete factorial design in attribute-level best-worst choice experiments, assuming both that all attribute levels are equally attractive and that only main effects of attribute levels are to be used to explain the results.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bradley, R. A. 1955. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: III. Some large-sample results on estimation and power for a method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 42, 450–470.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., T. N. Flynn, N. Lucy, K. Sproston, J. Lewis, J. J. Louviere, and T. J. Peters. 2008. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Sci. Med., 67, 874–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., C. Salisbury, D. de Berker, A. Noble, S. Horrocks, T. J. Peters, and T. N. Flynn. 2006. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Bri. J. Dermat., 155, 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, T., J. Louviere, T. Peters, and J. Coast. 2010. Using discrete choice experiments to under-stand preferences for quality of life. variance scale heterogeneity matters. Social Sci. Med., 70, 1957–1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, T. N., J. J. Louviere, T. J. Peters, and J. Coast. 2007. Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ., 26, 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res., 33, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S. A., R. C. Viney, D. J. Street, M. R. Haas, D. G. Fiebig, E. Weisberg, and D. Bateson. 2011. What’s good and bad about contraceptive products? A best-worst attribute experiment comparing the values of women consumers and GP providers. Pharmacoeconomics. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A. A. J., T. N. Flynn, and J. J. Louviere. 2008. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J. Math. Psychol., 52, 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendergrass, R. N., and R. A. Bradley. 1960. Ranking in triple comparisons. In Contributions to probability and statistics, 331–351. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pihlens, D. 2009. Personal communication. Technical report, University of Technology, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potoglou, D., P. Burge, T. Flynn, A. Netten, J. Malley, J. Forder, and J. E. Brazier. 2011. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data. Social Sci. Med., 72, 1717–1727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, D. J. 2006. Orthogonal main effect plans. In Handbook of combinatorial designs, 2nd ed., ed. C. Colbourn and J. Dinitz, 547–549. Boca Raton, FL, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, D. J., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. New York, NY, Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah J. Street.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Street, D.J., Knox, S.A. Designing for Attribute-Level Best-Worst Choice Experiments. J Stat Theory Pract 6, 363–375 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/15598608.2012.673900

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15598608.2012.673900

AMS Subject Classification

Key-words

Navigation