DOES THE NUMBER OF CHOICE SETS MATTER? RESULTS FROM A WEB SURVEY APPLYING A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT

被引:173
作者
Bech, Mickael [1 ]
Kjaer, Trine [1 ]
Lauridsen, Jorgen [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ So Denmark, Inst Publ Hlth, Odense, Denmark
关键词
discrete choice experiments; design properties; design of designs; willingness-to-pay; number of choice sets; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS; REVEALING DIFFERENCES; STATED PREFERENCES; INFORMATION SEARCH; DECISION STRATEGY; CONSUMER CHOICE; TASK COMPLEXITY; DESIGN; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1587
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Optimising the design of discrete choice experiments (DCE) involves maximising not only the statistical efficiency, but also how the nature and complexity of the experiment itself affects model parameters and variance. The present paper contributes by investigating the impact of the number of DCE choice sets presented to each respondent on response rate, self-reported choice certainty, perceived choice difficulty, willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates, and response variance. A sample of 1053 respondents was exposed to 5, 9 or 17 choice sets in a DCE eliciting preferences for dental services. Our results showed no differences in response rates and no systematic differences in the respondents' self-reported perception of the uncertainty of their DCE answers. There were some differences in WTP estimates suggesting that estimated preferences are to some extent context-dependent, but no differences in standard deviations for WTP estimates or goodness-of-fit statistics. Respondents exposed to 17 choice sets had somewhat higher response variance compared to those exposed to 5 choice sets, indicating that cognitive burden may increase with the number of choice sets beyond a certain threshold. Overall, our results suggest that respondents are capable of managing multiple choice sets - in this case 17 choice sets - without problems. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:273 / 286
页数:14
相关论文
共 60 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2000, MARKET LETT, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1008139226934
  • [2] Banzhaf MR, 2001, NEW HOR ENV ECO, P157
  • [3] Bateman IJ, 2002, EC EVALUATION STATED
  • [4] Graded pairs comparison -: Does strength of preference matter?: Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management
    Bech, Mickael
    Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte
    Kjaer, Trine
    Lauridsen, Jorgen
    Sorensen, Jan
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2007, 16 (05) : 513 - 529
  • [5] Bryan S, 1998, HEALTH ECON, V7, P595, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID-HEC381>3.3.CO
  • [6] 2-5
  • [7] CARLSSON F, 2006, WORKING PAPERS EC GO, V191
  • [8] Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates
    Caussade, S
    Ortúzar, JD
    Rizzi, LI
    Hensher, DA
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART B-METHODOLOGICAL, 2005, 39 (07) : 621 - 640
  • [9] Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method
    Cummings, RG
    Taylor, LO
    [J]. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 1999, 89 (03) : 649 - 665
  • [10] Dellaert B.G., 1999, MARKET LETT, V10, P139