Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling

References

• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev.34, 273–286 (1927).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, NY, USA 105–142 (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Public Policy Marketing11(1), 12–25 (1992).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J. Math. Psychol.49, 464–480 (2005).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J. Math. Psychol.52, 281–296 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J. Bus. Ethics70, 299–326 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JA, Soutar G, Louviere JJ. Measuring values using best-worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol. Mark.24(12), 1043–1058 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JA, Soutar G, Louviere JJ. The best-worst scaling approach: an alternative to Schwartz’s values survey. J. Pers. Assess.90(4), 335–347 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hein KA, Jaeger SR, Carr BT, Delahunty CM. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Qual. Prefer.19, 651–661 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger SR, Jorgensen AS, Aaslyng MD, Bredie WLP. Best-worst scaling: an introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Qual. Prefer.19, 579–588 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger SR, Cardello AV. Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: a comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best–worst scaling. Food Qual. Prefer.20, 249–258 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen E. Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.21(1), 8–23 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Casini L, Corsi AM, Goodman S. Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying best-worst scaling. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.21(1), 64–78 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Mueller S, Rungie C. Is there more information in best-worst choice data? Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.21(1), 24–40 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Goodman S. An international comparison of retail wine consumer choice. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.21(1), 41–49 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, Murawski MM, Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf. J.33, 849–858 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh E, Louviere JJ. Separating weight and scale value: an exploration of best-attribute scaling in health economics. Presented at: Health Economists Study Group Meeting. Brunel University, Middlesex, UK, 3–5 July (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ.26(1), 171–189 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc. Sci. Med.64, 1738–1753 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson RF, Hauber AB. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual. Life Res.15, 285–298 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Street DJ, Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc, NJ, USA (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance scale heterogeneity matters. Soc. Sci. Med.70, 1957–1965 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ. What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics34, 173–188 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.8(76), DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-76 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc. Sci. Med.67, 874–882 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, Flynn TN, Grewal I, Lewis J, Natarajan L, Sproston K. Developing an index of capability for older people: a new form of measure for public health interventions. In: Future Public Health: Burdens, Challenges and Opportunities. Palgrave, Chippenham and Eastbourne, UK 193–206 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J. Choice Modelling1(1), 128–163 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P, Bush RR, Galanter E. Preference utility and subjective probability. In: Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Volume III). Wiley, NY, USA 249–410 (1965).
   Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ. Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking. J. Math. Psychol.5, 333–355 (1968).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econom.16, 1–19 (1981).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helson H. Adaptation-Level Theory. Harper & Row, NY, USA (1964).
   Google Scholar
• Vermeulen B, Goos P, Vandebroek M. Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices. Comput. Stat. Data Anal.54, 1426–1433 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econom.15(15), 447–470 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere JJ, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model. Marketing Science DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0508 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in marketing research: theory, measurement and experimental test. Marketing Science29(1), 1–17 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn TN et al. Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst discrete choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade off methods. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy (In press).
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics24(9), 855–868 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul. Health Metr.1(1), 12 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AAJ, Coast J, Peters TJ. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul. Health Metr.6, 1–6 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hensher DA, Louviere JJ, Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econom.89, 197–221 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar