, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 711–722 | Cite as

Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values

Issues to Consider
  • Terry N. FlynnEmail author
Leading Article


There is increasing interest in using ranking tasks, discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling studies to estimate QALY values for use in cost-utility analysis. The research frontier in choice modelling is moving rapidly, with a number of issues being explored across several disciplines. These issues include the estimation of discount factors, proper modelling of the variance scale factor and the estimation of individual-level utility functions. Some of these issues are particularly acute when discrete choice tasks are used to facilitate extra-welfarist analyses that rely on populationbased values. There are also potential problems in implementing such tasks that have received little interest in the non-health discrete choice literature because they are specific to the QALY framework. This article details these issues and offers recommendations on the conduct of 21st century QALY valuation exercises that propose to use any tasks that rely on discrete choices.


Discrete Choice Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiment Standard Gamble Variance Heterogeneity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.


  1. 1.
    Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005; 14: 39–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 1994; 39 (1): 7–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luce RD. Individual choice behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle [report no. 136]. York: University of York, 1995Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 2006; 25 (5): 927–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67: 874–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1985Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McFadden D, Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior: frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press, 1974: 105–42Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hensher DA, Louviere JJ, Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J Econom 1999; 89: 197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Louviere JJ. What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Res Econ 2006; 34: 173–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. In pressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econom 2000; 15 (15): 447–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, et al. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. Epub 2009 Jul 23 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Apr 21]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luce RD, Suppes P, Bush RR, et al. Preference utility and subjective probability: handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol III. New York: Wiley, 1965: 249–410Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marley AAJ. Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking. J Math Psychol 1968; 5: 333–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econom 1981; 16: 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1 (1): 12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCabe C, Brazier JE, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. JHealth Econ 2006; 25: 418–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AAJ, et al. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metr 2008; 6: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hausman JA, Ruud PA. Specifying and testing economic models for rank-ordered data. J Econom 1987; 34: 83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 1991; 23: 253–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Pub Pol Mark 1992; 11 (1): 12–25Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, et al. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Modell 2008; 1 (1): 128–63Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Helson H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the differences between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11: 447–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49: 464–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 849–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26 (1): 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carson RT, Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 2007; 37: 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Swait J, Louviere JJ. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res 1993; 30: 305–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dolan P. Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Econ Pol Law 2008; 3: 69–77Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J 2008; 118: 215–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sen A. Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Devel 2005; 6: 151–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 234–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in marketing research: theory, measurement and experimental test. Market Sci 2010; 29 (1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yatchew A, Griliches Z. Specification error in probit models. Rev Econ Stat 1985; 67 (1): 134–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mood C. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Euro Sociol Rev 2010; 26 (1): 67–82 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Apr 21]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC), University of TechnologySydney, UltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations