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
  • [41] Balancing the nexus of beef sustainability: a best-worst scaling approach to inform policy decisions
    Osman, Eliyasu Y.
    Schroeder, Ted C.
    Lancaster, Phillip A.
    White, Brad J.
    AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS REVIEW, 2024,
  • [42] MARKET-CHANNEL CHOICES OF INDONESIAN POTATO FARMERS: A BEST-WORST SCALING EXPERIMENT
    Umberger, Wendy J.
    Reardon, Thomas
    Stringer, Randy
    Loose, Simone Mueller
    BULLETIN OF INDONESIAN ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2015, 51 (03) : 461 - 477
  • [43] Will greenhouse concerns impact meat consumption? Best-worst scaling analysis of Australian consumers
    Rolfe, John
    Rajapaksa, Darshana
    De Valck, Jeremy
    Star, Megan
    FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2023, 104
  • [44] Patient preferences for cancer screening in chronic kidney disease: a best-worst scaling survey
    James, Laura J.
    Wong, Germaine
    Tong, Allison
    Craig, Jonathan C.
    Howard, Kirsten
    Howell, Martin
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 37 (12) : 2449 - 2456
  • [45] A study on Chinese consumer preferences for food traceability information using best-worst scaling
    Liu, Cheng
    Li, Jiaoyuan
    Steele, William
    Fang, Xiangming
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (11):
  • [46] Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety
    Erdem, Seda
    Rigby, Dan
    Wossink, Ada
    FOOD POLICY, 2012, 37 (06) : 661 - 670
  • [47] Assessing Italians' Preferences for Mountain Beef Production Using a Best-Worst Scaling Approach
    Linder, Mikael Oliveira
    Sidali, Katia Laura
    Fischer, Christian
    Gauly, Matthias
    Busch, Gesa
    MOUNTAIN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2022, 42 (03) : R8 - R15
  • [48] Use of best-worst scaling to assess patient perceptions of treatments for refractory overactive bladder
    Beusterien, Kathleen
    Kennelly, Michael J.
    Bridges, John F. P.
    Amos, Kaitlan
    Williams, Mary Jo
    Vasavada, Sandip
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2016, 35 (08) : 1028 - 1033
  • [49] Public preferences regarding adoption of personal genomic testing based on best-worst scaling
    Jeong, Gicheol
    HEALTH POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 7 (04) : 358 - 364
  • [50] A formal and empirical comparison of two score measures for best-worst scaling
    Marley, A. A. J.
    Islam, T.
    Hawkins, G. E.
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2016, 21 : 15 - 24