A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study provides insights into the validity and acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and profile-case Best Worst Scaling (BWS) methods for eliciting preferences for health care in a priority-setting context.<h4>Methods</h4>An adult sample (N...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jennifer A Whitty, Ruth Walker, Xanthe Golenko, Julie Ratcliffe
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/fc8bcd65fbd04433862fa14d90a6d6d3
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:fc8bcd65fbd04433862fa14d90a6d6d3
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:fc8bcd65fbd04433862fa14d90a6d6d32021-11-18T08:21:50ZA think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0090635https://doaj.org/article/fc8bcd65fbd04433862fa14d90a6d6d32014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24759637/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Objectives</h4>This study provides insights into the validity and acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and profile-case Best Worst Scaling (BWS) methods for eliciting preferences for health care in a priority-setting context.<h4>Methods</h4>An adult sample (N = 24) undertook a traditional DCE and a BWS choice task as part of a wider survey on Health Technology Assessment decision criteria. A 'think aloud' protocol was applied, whereby participants verbalized their thinking while making choices. Internal validity and acceptability were assessed through a thematic analysis of the decision-making process emerging from the qualitative data and a repeated choice task.<h4>Results</h4>A thematic analysis of the decision-making process demonstrated clear evidence of 'trading' between multiple attribute/levels for the DCE, and to a lesser extent for the BWS task. Limited evidence consistent with a sequential decision-making model was observed for the BWS task. For the BWS task, some participants found choosing the worst attribute/level conceptually challenging. A desire to provide a complete ranking from best to worst was observed. The majority (18,75%) of participants indicated a preference for DCE, as they felt this enabled comparison of alternative full profiles. Those preferring BWS were averse to choosing an undesirable characteristic that was part of a 'package', or perceived BWS to be less ethically conflicting or burdensome. In a repeated choice task, more participants were consistent for the DCE (22,92%) than BWS (10,42%) (p = 0.002).<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study supports the validity and acceptability of the traditional DCE format. Findings relating to the application of BWS profile methods are less definitive. Research avenues to further clarify the comparative merits of these preference elicitation methods are identified.Jennifer A WhittyRuth WalkerXanthe GolenkoJulie RatcliffePublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 4, p e90635 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jennifer A Whitty Ruth Walker Xanthe Golenko Julie Ratcliffe A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
description	<h4>Objectives</h4>This study provides insights into the validity and acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and profile-case Best Worst Scaling (BWS) methods for eliciting preferences for health care in a priority-setting context.<h4>Methods</h4>An adult sample (N = 24) undertook a traditional DCE and a BWS choice task as part of a wider survey on Health Technology Assessment decision criteria. A 'think aloud' protocol was applied, whereby participants verbalized their thinking while making choices. Internal validity and acceptability were assessed through a thematic analysis of the decision-making process emerging from the qualitative data and a repeated choice task.<h4>Results</h4>A thematic analysis of the decision-making process demonstrated clear evidence of 'trading' between multiple attribute/levels for the DCE, and to a lesser extent for the BWS task. Limited evidence consistent with a sequential decision-making model was observed for the BWS task. For the BWS task, some participants found choosing the worst attribute/level conceptually challenging. A desire to provide a complete ranking from best to worst was observed. The majority (18,75%) of participants indicated a preference for DCE, as they felt this enabled comparison of alternative full profiles. Those preferring BWS were averse to choosing an undesirable characteristic that was part of a 'package', or perceived BWS to be less ethically conflicting or burdensome. In a repeated choice task, more participants were consistent for the DCE (22,92%) than BWS (10,42%) (p = 0.002).<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study supports the validity and acceptability of the traditional DCE format. Findings relating to the application of BWS profile methods are less definitive. Research avenues to further clarify the comparative merits of these preference elicitation methods are identified.
format	article
author	Jennifer A Whitty Ruth Walker Xanthe Golenko Julie Ratcliffe
author_facet	Jennifer A Whitty Ruth Walker Xanthe Golenko Julie Ratcliffe
author_sort	Jennifer A Whitty
title	A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
title_short	A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
title_full	A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
title_fullStr	A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
title_full_unstemmed	A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
title_sort	think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/fc8bcd65fbd04433862fa14d90a6d6d3
work_keys_str_mv	AT jenniferawhitty athinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT ruthwalker athinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT xanthegolenko athinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT julieratcliffe athinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT jenniferawhitty thinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT ruthwalker thinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT xanthegolenko thinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods AT julieratcliffe thinkaloudstudycomparingthevalidityandacceptabilityofdiscretechoiceandbestworstscalingmethods
_version_	1718421900046106624

A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.

Ejemplares similares