↓ Skip to main content

Exploring how individuals complete the choice tasks in a discrete choice experiment: an interview study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring how individuals complete the choice tasks in a discrete choice experiment: an interview study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0140-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorien Veldwijk, Domino Determann, Mattijs S. Lambooij, Janine A. van Til, Ida J. Korfage, Esther W. de Bekker-Grob, G. Ardine de Wit

Abstract

To be able to make valid inferences on stated preference data from a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) it is essential that researchers know if participants were actively involved, understood and interpreted the provided information correctly and whether they used complex decision strategies to make their choices and thereby acted in accordance with the continuity axiom. During structured interviews, we explored how 70 participants evaluated and completed four discrete choice tasks aloud. Hereafter, additional questions were asked to further explore if participants understood the information that was provided to them and whether they used complex decision strategies (continuity axiom) when making their choices. Two existing DCE questionnaires on rotavirus vaccination and prostate cancer-screening served as case studies. A large proportion of the participants was not able to repeat the exact definition of the risk attributes as explained to them in the introduction of the questionnaire. The majority of the participants preferred more optimal over less optimal risk attribute levels. Most participants (66 %) mentioned three or more attributes when motivating their decisions, thereby acting in accordance with the continuity axiom. However, 16 out of 70 participants continuously mentioned less than three attributes when motivating their decision. Lower educated and less literate participants tended to mention less than three attributes when motivating their decision and used trading off between attributes less often as a decision-making strategy. The majority of the participants seemed to have understood the provided information about the choice tasks, the attributes, and the levels. They used complex decision strategies (continuity axiom) and are therefore capable to adequately complete a DCE. However, based on the participants' age, educational level and health literacy additional, actions should be undertaken to ensure that participants understand the choice tasks and complete the DCE as presumed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 8%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,799,386
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,683
of 2,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,342
of 299,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.