For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health

Nicolas Krucien (Corresponding Author), Jonathan Sicsic, Mandy Ryan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used in health economics to measure preferences for non-market goods. Best worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) has been proposed as a variant of the traditional “pick the best” approach. BWDCE, where participants choose the best and worst options, is argued to generate more precise preference estimates because of the additional information collected. However, the validity of the approach relies on two necessary conditions: (i) best and worst decisions provide similar information about preferences, and (ii) asking individuals to answer more than one choice question per task does not reduce data quality. Whether these conditions hold in empirical applications remains under researched. This is the first study to compare participants’ choices across three experimental conditions: (i) BEST choices only, (ii) WORST choices only, and (iii) BEST & WORST choices (BWDCE). We find responses to worst choices are noisier. Implied preferences from the best only and worst only choices are qualitatively different, leading to different WTP values. Responses to BWDCE tasks have lower consistency and respondents are more likely to use simplifying decision heuristics. We urge caution in using BWDCE as an alternative to the traditional "pick the best" DCE.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)572-586
Number of pages15
JournalHealth Economics
Volume28
Issue number4
Early online date13 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Economics
Health
Heuristics
Data Accuracy
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • best–worst scaling
  • discrete choice experiments
  • stated preferences
  • PREFERENCES
  • COMPLEXITY
  • SETS
  • best-worst scaling
  • SCALE
  • ATTRIBUTE NON-ATTENDANCE
  • UTILITY
  • CARE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health. / Krucien, Nicolas (Corresponding Author); Sicsic, Jonathan; Ryan, Mandy.

In: Health Economics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 04.2019, p. 572-586.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{559c87d06d6f45e78af4ee9d31162c99,
title = "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health",
abstract = "Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used in health economics to measure preferences for non-market goods. Best worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) has been proposed as a variant of the traditional “pick the best” approach. BWDCE, where participants choose the best and worst options, is argued to generate more precise preference estimates because of the additional information collected. However, the validity of the approach relies on two necessary conditions: (i) best and worst decisions provide similar information about preferences, and (ii) asking individuals to answer more than one choice question per task does not reduce data quality. Whether these conditions hold in empirical applications remains under researched. This is the first study to compare participants’ choices across three experimental conditions: (i) BEST choices only, (ii) WORST choices only, and (iii) BEST & WORST choices (BWDCE). We find responses to worst choices are noisier. Implied preferences from the best only and worst only choices are qualitatively different, leading to different WTP values. Responses to BWDCE tasks have lower consistency and respondents are more likely to use simplifying decision heuristics. We urge caution in using BWDCE as an alternative to the traditional {"}pick the best{"} DCE.",
keywords = "best–worst scaling, discrete choice experiments, stated preferences, PREFERENCES, COMPLEXITY, SETS, best-worst scaling, SCALE, ATTRIBUTE NON-ATTENDANCE, UTILITY, CARE",
author = "Nicolas Krucien and Jonathan Sicsic and Mandy Ryan",
note = "Funding Information Health Foundation. Grant Number: THF 7264 the French National Institute for Cancer",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1002/hec.3869",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "572--586",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health

AU - Krucien, Nicolas

AU - Sicsic, Jonathan

AU - Ryan, Mandy

N1 - Funding Information Health Foundation. Grant Number: THF 7264 the French National Institute for Cancer

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used in health economics to measure preferences for non-market goods. Best worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) has been proposed as a variant of the traditional “pick the best” approach. BWDCE, where participants choose the best and worst options, is argued to generate more precise preference estimates because of the additional information collected. However, the validity of the approach relies on two necessary conditions: (i) best and worst decisions provide similar information about preferences, and (ii) asking individuals to answer more than one choice question per task does not reduce data quality. Whether these conditions hold in empirical applications remains under researched. This is the first study to compare participants’ choices across three experimental conditions: (i) BEST choices only, (ii) WORST choices only, and (iii) BEST & WORST choices (BWDCE). We find responses to worst choices are noisier. Implied preferences from the best only and worst only choices are qualitatively different, leading to different WTP values. Responses to BWDCE tasks have lower consistency and respondents are more likely to use simplifying decision heuristics. We urge caution in using BWDCE as an alternative to the traditional "pick the best" DCE.

AB - Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used in health economics to measure preferences for non-market goods. Best worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) has been proposed as a variant of the traditional “pick the best” approach. BWDCE, where participants choose the best and worst options, is argued to generate more precise preference estimates because of the additional information collected. However, the validity of the approach relies on two necessary conditions: (i) best and worst decisions provide similar information about preferences, and (ii) asking individuals to answer more than one choice question per task does not reduce data quality. Whether these conditions hold in empirical applications remains under researched. This is the first study to compare participants’ choices across three experimental conditions: (i) BEST choices only, (ii) WORST choices only, and (iii) BEST & WORST choices (BWDCE). We find responses to worst choices are noisier. Implied preferences from the best only and worst only choices are qualitatively different, leading to different WTP values. Responses to BWDCE tasks have lower consistency and respondents are more likely to use simplifying decision heuristics. We urge caution in using BWDCE as an alternative to the traditional "pick the best" DCE.

KW - best–worst scaling

KW - discrete choice experiments

KW - stated preferences

KW - PREFERENCES

KW - COMPLEXITY

KW - SETS

KW - best-worst scaling

KW - SCALE

KW - ATTRIBUTE NON-ATTENDANCE

KW - UTILITY

KW - CARE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061437572&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/better-worse-investigating-validity-bestworst-discrete-choice-experiments-health

U2 - 10.1002/hec.3869

DO - 10.1002/hec.3869

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 572

EP - 586

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - 4

ER -