No abstract

No abstract

ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. AbstractThere is growing interest in the use of models that recognise the role of individuals' attitudes and perceptions in choice behaviour. Rather than relying on simple linear approaches or a potentially bias-inducing deterministic approach based on incorporating stated attitudinal indicators directly in the choice model, researchers have recently recognised the latent nature of attitudes. The uptake of such latent attitude models in applied work has however been slow, while a number of overly simplistic assumptions are also commonly made. In this paper, we present an application of jointly estimated attitudinal and choice models to a real world transport study, looking at the role of latent attitudes in a rail travel context. Our results show the impact that concern with privacy, liberty and security, and distrust of business, technology and authority have on the desire for rail travel in the face of increased security measures, as well as for universal security checks. Alongside demonstrating the applicability of the model in applied work, we also address a number of theoretical issues. We first show the equivalence of two different normalisations discussed in the literature. Unlike many other latent attitude studies, we explicitly recognise the repeated choice nature of the data. Finally, the main methodological contribution comes in replacing the typically used continuous model for attitudinal response by an ordered logit structure which more correctly accounts for the ordinal nature of the indicators.

Key messages• This study illustrates key issues that are important in choosing between profile-case best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiment studies • Empirical research on the value of outcomes of social care reveals similar patterns in the preference weights obtained from the two approaches • In the majority of cases examined, preference weights are not significantly different once the weights have been appropriately normalised/rescaled 3 Abstract 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, 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.