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.
|