Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments

Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force

F. Reed Johnson, Emily Lancsar, Deborah Marshall, Vikram Kilambi, Axel Mühlbacher, Dean A. Regier, Brian W. Bresnahan, Barbara Kanninen, John F P Bridges

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods - and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) - have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-13
Number of pages11
JournalValue in Health
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Research Design
Research
Research Personnel
Consensus
Delivery of Health Care
Telecommunications
Baltimore
Patient Preference
Statistical Models
Checklist
Software
Health

Keywords

  • conjoint analysis
  • discrete-choice experiment
  • experimental design
  • stated preferences

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments : Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. / Johnson, F. Reed; Lancsar, Emily; Marshall, Deborah; Kilambi, Vikram; Mühlbacher, Axel; Regier, Dean A.; Bresnahan, Brian W.; Kanninen, Barbara; Bridges, John F P.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 16, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 3-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, FR, Lancsar, E, Marshall, D, Kilambi, V, Mühlbacher, A, Regier, DA, Bresnahan, BW, Kanninen, B & Bridges, JFP 2013, 'Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force', Value in Health, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Johnson, F. Reed ; Lancsar, Emily ; Marshall, Deborah ; Kilambi, Vikram ; Mühlbacher, Axel ; Regier, Dean A. ; Bresnahan, Brian W. ; Kanninen, Barbara ; Bridges, John F P. / Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments : Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. In: Value in Health. 2013 ; Vol. 16, No. 1. pp. 3-13.
@article{8760f01d65934d30ba6c26d639f7cc33,
title = "Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force",
abstract = "Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods - and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) - have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).",
keywords = "conjoint analysis, discrete-choice experiment, experimental design, stated preferences",
author = "Johnson, {F. Reed} and Emily Lancsar and Deborah Marshall and Vikram Kilambi and Axel M{\"u}hlbacher and Regier, {Dean A.} and Bresnahan, {Brian W.} and Barbara Kanninen and Bridges, {John F P}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "3--13",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments

T2 - Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force

AU - Johnson, F. Reed

AU - Lancsar, Emily

AU - Marshall, Deborah

AU - Kilambi, Vikram

AU - Mühlbacher, Axel

AU - Regier, Dean A.

AU - Bresnahan, Brian W.

AU - Kanninen, Barbara

AU - Bridges, John F P

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods - and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) - have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).

AB - Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods - and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) - have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).

KW - conjoint analysis

KW - discrete-choice experiment

KW - experimental design

KW - stated preferences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872731697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872731697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 3

EP - 13

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 1

ER -