Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant‐sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences

Skedgel, Chris; Wailoo, Allan; Akehurst, Ron

doi:10.1111/hex.12098

Cited by 34 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Budgetary allocation between two options-CSPC analyses-has also been used in the health sector a number of times [11,16,22,[25][26][27]. Its use has been directly compared with time trade-off and person trade-off [28,29] and with discrete choice experiment [30,31]. Carson and Louviere [32] argue that CSPC is consistent with random utility theory and a number of methodological reviews of its use have been published [6,7,31].…”

Section: Analysis Of Cspc Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing and the Provision of “Cost-Ineffective” Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Cspc Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing and the Provision of “Cost-Ineffective” Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it overcomes some of the problems identified in other budget pie studies that rely on survey data (Skedgel et al, 2013). The method combines a set of preference elicitation tools that is of policy use 26 when making resource allocation decisions in the context of health care, especially at times of budget cuts, but can which can also be implemented across the board at all times.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, Blomquist et al, (2004) and Skedgel et al (2013) we use a used a participatory and group allocation mechanism. Participants could then engage in a discussion as a group, on the reasons for their collective decisions.…”

Section: Question 2: Imagine Being Asked To Allocate the Health Care mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Budget pie experiments have been examined in the health context in Skedgel et al (2013) in a choice context. Indeed, Skedgel et al (2013) draws from discrete choice techniques and budget pie strategies with varying health system atttibutes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, Skedgel et al (2013) draws from discrete choice techniques and budget pie strategies with varying health system atttibutes. They find that budget pie techniques are more aligned with societal preferences, but discrete choice respondent appear to be more consistent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

Costa‐Font

Forns

Sato

2015

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to heath system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible, incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level.

show abstract

The Fakeability of Personality Measurement with Graded Paired Comparisons

Schulte,

Kaup,

Bürkner

et al. 2024

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the faking resistance of Likert scales and graded paired comparisons (GPCs) analyzed with Thurstonian IRT models. We analyzed whether GPCs are more resistant to faking than Likert scales by exhibiting lower score inflation and better recovery of applicants’ true (i.e., honest) trait scores. A total of $$N=573$$ N = 573 participants completed either the Likert or GPC version of a personality questionnaire first honestly and then in an applicant scenario. Results show that participants were able to increase their scores in both the Likert and GPC format, though their score inflation was smaller in the GPC than the Likert format. However, GPCs did not exhibit higher honest–faking correlations than Likert scales; under certain conditions, we even observed negative associations. These results challenge mean score inflation as the dominant paradigm for judging the utility of forced-choice questionnaires in high-stakes situations. Even if forced-choice factor scores are less inflated, their ability to recover true trait standings in high-stakes situations might be lower compared with Likert scales. Moreover, in the GPC format, faking effects correlated almost perfectly with the social desirability differences of the corresponding statements, highlighting the importance of matching statements equal in social desirability when constructing forced-choice questionnaires.

show abstract

Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant‐sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences

Abstract: Background There is growing evidence of a reluctance to allocate health care solely on the basis of maximizing quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Stated preference methods can be used to elicit preferences for efficiency vs. equity in the allocation of health-care resources.

Cited by 34 publications

References 40 publications

Sharing and the Provision of “Cost-Ineffective” Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

Sharing and the Provision of “Cost-Ineffective” Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

The Fakeability of Personality Measurement with Graded Paired Comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About