| Titre : | Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments : An empirical comparison using social care data. (2011) |
| Auteurs : | Dimitris POTOGLOU ; BRAZIER (John-E) : GBR. Heath Economics and Decision Science. School of Health and Related Research. University of Sheffield. ; Peter BURGE ; FLYNN (Terry) : AUS. Centre for the Study of Choice. University of Technology. Sydney. ; Julien FORDER ; Juliette MALLEY ; Ann NETTER ; Personal Social Services Research Unit. University of Kent. GBR ; Rand Europe. Westbrook Centre. Cambridge Cambridgeshire. GBR |
| Type de document : | Article |
| Dans : | Social science and medicine (vol. 72, n° 10, 2011) |
| Pagination : | 1717-1727 |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Mots-clés : | Etude comparée ; Europe sociale ; Soins ; Modèle ; Pronostic ; Evolution ; Homme ; Europe |
| Résumé : | [BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS omEJJR0x. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. This paper presents empirical findings from the comparison between two principal preference elicitation techniques : discrete choice experiments and profile-based best-worst scaling. Best-worst scaling involves less cognitive burden for respondents and provides more information than traditional "pick-one" tasks asked in discrete choice experiments. However, there is lack of empirical evidence on how best-worst scaling compares to discrete choice experiments. This empirical comparison between discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling was undertaken as part of the Outcomes of Social Care for Adults project, England, which aims to develop a weighted measure of social care outcomes. The findings show that preference weights from best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiments do reveal similar patterns in preferences and in the majority of cases preference weights - when normalised/rescaled - are not significantly different. |

