Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 363–375 | Cite as

Designing for Attribute-Level Best-Worst Choice Experiments

  • Deborah J. Street
  • Stephanie A. Knox
Article

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.

AMS Subject Classification

62J15; 62K05 

Key-words

Discrete choice experiments Stated preference experiments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res., 33, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Pihlens, D. 2009. Personal communication. Technical report, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Street, D. J., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. New York, NY, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics Research and EvaluationUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations