Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations

Vaillancourt

et al. 2011

Aggressive Behavior

We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the bullying prevention recommendations of 845 students from grades 5 to 8 (aged 9-14). Students made choices between experimentally varied combinations of 14 four-level prevention program attributes. Latent class analysis yielded three segments. The high impact segment (27.1%) recommended uniforms, mandatory recess activities, four playground supervisors, surveillance cameras, and 4-day suspensions when students bully. The moderate impact segment (49.5%) recommended discretionary uniforms and recess activities, four playground supervisors, and 3-day suspensions. Involvement as a bully or bully-victim was associated with membership in a low impact segment (23.4%) that rejected uniforms and surveillance cameras. They recommended fewer anti-bullying activities, discretionary recess activities, fewer playground supervisors, and the 2-day suspensions. Simulations predicted most students would recommend a program maximizing student involvement combining prevention with moderate consequences. The simulated introduction of mandatory uniforms, surveillance cameras, and long suspensions reduced overall support for a comprehensive program, particularly among students involved as bullies or bully-victims.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the bullying prevention program design recommendations of students from grades five to eight: a discrete choice conjoint experiment

Vaillancourt

et al. 2011

Aggressive Behavior

“…Using a randomized first choice model we calculated the percent of the sample population that would choose one scenario over another. The details of randomized first choice simulations have been previously outlined (30,31). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Patients’ Preferences for Referrals to Specialists for an Asymptomatic Condition

Dunlea

Lenert

2015

Med Decis Making

BACKGROUND A specialty referral is a common but complex decision that often requires a primary care provider to balance his or her own interests with those of the patient. OBJECTIVE To examine the factors that influence a patient’s choice of a specialist for consultation for an asymptomatic condition and better understand the trade-offs that patients are and are not willing to make in this decision. DESIGN Stratified cross sectional convenience sample of subjects selected to parallel US population demographics. PARTICIPANTS Members of an Internet survey panel who reported seeing a physician in the past year whose responses met objective quality metrics for attention. MAIN MEASURES Respondents completed an adaptive conjoint analysis survey comparing specialists over eight attributes. The reliability of assessments and the predictive validity of models were measured using hold out samples. The relative importance (RI) of different attributes was computed using paired t tests. The implications of utility values were studied using market simulation methods. KEY RESULTS 530 subjects completed the survey and had responses that met quality criteria. The reliability of responses was high (86% agreement) and models were predictive of patients’ preferences (82.6% agreement with holdout choices.) The most important attribute for patients was out-of-pocket cost (RI of 19.5%, p<0.0001 vs. other factors). Among the non-financial factors “collaboration and communication” with the primary care provider was the most important attribute (RI of 13.1% P<0.001). Third in importance was whether the specialist practiced shared decision-making (RI of12.2% P<0.001 vs. other factors except delay in consultation). Cost did not dominate decision-making. In market simulations patients frequently preferred more expensive providers. For example, most patients (76.3%) were willing to pay more ($80) to see a specialist who both collaborated well with their primary care provider and practiced shared decision-making. Most patients prefer to wait for a doctor that practices shared decision making: only a third (32.3%) of patients were preferred a paternalistic doctor that was available in 2 weeks over a doctor that practiced decision making, but that was available in 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In the setting of a referral asymptomatic but serious condition, out of pocket costs are important to patients; however, they also value specialists who collaborate and communicate well with their primary care providers and who practice shared decision-making. Patients have wide variability in preferences for specialists and referral decisions should be individualized.

“…A 'maximum utility rule' is assumed, which predicts that respondents would choose the option with the highest composite utility. Randomized first choice simulations then estimate the choices of each participant, adding random error to the utility values at each of 100,000 iterations and averaging those predictions across iterations and respondents (see Huber et al, 1999, andOrme, 2006, for more detailed discussions of the computation of randomized first choice simulations). In the following scenario, a realistic market situation was demonstrated by calculating the share of preference of four hypothetical products.…”

Section: Simulation Of Market Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Adjustment of Eco‐labeling Schemes and Consumer Choice – the Revision of the EU Energy Label as a Missed Opportunity?

2011

Products with a superior environmental performance, such as a high level of energy efficiency, are typically subject to information asymmetries. Therefore these product attributes are often undervalued in purchase decisions. Signaling, e.g. energy labeling, can overcome these asymmetries, with positive implications for effective consumer decisions, competitive advantage for suppliers of energy-efficient goods, and for societal goals such as mitigating climate change. However, there is a scarcity of research investigating how energy labels actually influence consumer choice. The recent revision of the European Union energy label provided a unique opportunity to investigate the effectiveness of energy labeling in a quasi field-experimental setting. We show that the proposed extension of the seven-point A-G rating scale by adding new classes A+, A++, etc. will result in a lower perceived importance of energy efficiency in consumer decision-making. Based on a stated preference survey investigating 2244 choices by German consumers, we conclude that the revision actually undermines the label's ability to overcome information asymmetries, hence potentially contributing to market failure.