The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review

被引:16
|
作者
Schuster, Anne L. R. [1 ]
Crossnohere, Norah L. [2 ]
Campoamor, Nicola B. [1 ]
Hollin, Ilene L. [3 ]
Bridges, John F. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, Coll Med, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Coll Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Columbus, OH USA
[3] Temple Univ, Dept Hlth Serv Adm & Policy, Coll Publ Hlth, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
Best-worst scaling; Choice experiments; Preference methods; Survey design; Transdisciplinary; DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS; PATIENT PREFERENCES; CAREGIVER PREFERENCES; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; MALE CIRCUMCISION; HPV VACCINATION; HEALTH; DEMAND; MOTIVATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100466
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a theory-driven choice experiment used for the prioritization of a finite number of options. Within the context of prioritization, BWS is also known as MaxDiff, BWS object case, and BWS Case 1. Now used in numerous fields, we conducted a transdisciplinary literature review of all published applications of BWS focused on prioritization to compare norms on the development, design, administration, analysis, and quality of BWS applications across fields. We identified 526 publications published before 2023 in the fields of health (n = 195), agriculture (n = 163), environment (n = 50), business (n = 50), linguistics (n = 24), transportation (n = 24), and other fields (n = 24). The application of BWS has been doubling every four years. BWS is applied globally with greatest frequency in North America (27.0%). Most studies had a clearly stated purpose (94.7%) that was empirical in nature (89.9%) with choices elicited in the present tense (90.9%). Apart from linguistics, most studies: applied at least one instrument development method (94.3%), used BWS to assess importance (63.1%), used 'most/ least' anchors (85.7%), and conducted heterogeneity analysis (69.0%). Studies predominantly administered surveys online (58.0%) and infrequently included formal sample size calculations (2.9%). BWS designs in linguistics differed significantly from other fields regarding the average number of objects (p < 0.01), average number of tasks (p < 0.01), average number of objects per task (p = 0.03), and average number of tasks presented to participants (p < 0.01). On a 5-point scale, the average PREFS score was 3.0. This review reveals the growing application of BWS for prioritization and promises to foster new transdisciplinary avenues of inquiry.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review
    Hollin, Ilene L.
    Paskett, Jonathan
    Schuster, Anne L. R.
    Crossnohere, Norah L.
    Bridges, John F. P.
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2022, 40 (09) : 883 - 899
  • [2] Using best-worst scaling to inform policy decisions in Africa: a literature review
    Beres, Laura K.
    Campoamor, Nicola B.
    Hawthorn, Rachael
    Mugambi, Melissa L.
    Mulabe, Musunge
    Vhlakis, Natlie
    Kabongo, Michael
    Schuster, Anne
    Bridges, John F. P.
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [3] An R package and tutorial for case 2 best-worst scaling
    Aizaki, Hideo
    Fogarty, James
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2019, 32
  • [4] Best-Worst Scaling with many items
    Chrzan, Keith
    Peitz, Megan
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2019, 30 : 61 - 72
  • [5] Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both
    Soekhai, V
    Donkers, B.
    Levitan, B.
    De Bekker-Grob, E. W.
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2021, 41
  • [6] R packages and tutorial for case 1 best-worst scaling
    Aizaki, Hideo
    Fogarty, James
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2023, 46
  • [7] Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
    Cheung, Kei Long
    Wijnen, Ben F. M.
    Hollin, Ilene L.
    Janssen, Ellen M.
    Bridges, John F.
    Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
    Hiligsmann, Mickael
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2016, 34 (12) : 1195 - 1209
  • [8] Student evaluation of teaching: the use of best-worst scaling
    Huybers, Twan
    ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2014, 39 (04) : 496 - 513
  • [9] Servicing in Sponsorship: A Best-Worst Scaling Empirical Analysis
    O'Reilly, Norm
    Huybers, Twan
    JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT, 2015, 29 (02) : 155 - 169
  • [10] Patient and caregiver preferences for the potential benefits and risks of a seizure forecasting device: A best-worst scaling
    Janse, Sarah A.
    Dumanis, Sonya B.
    Huwig, Tanya
    Hyman, Sarah
    Fureman, Brandy E.
    Bridges, John F. P.
    EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR, 2019, 96 : 183 - 191