Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types

Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy

“…In non-trade-off methods such as rating scales, participants commonly assign too much importance to the outcomes. Trade-off methods might provide better discrimination [20]. In this study, in which respondents were asked to trade-off outcome importance weights for a high number of attributes, the results were normally distributed and no ceiling effect was observed.…”

“…'Self-explicated approaches' (SEAs) is a subgroup of stated preference methods that originated in product development and marketing and have become popular due to their ability to determine relative weights for a large number of outcomes with low cognitive burden, small expenses, and relatively undemanding design, analysis and interpretation compared with other methods [20,21]. Research trials applying SEA methods have started to appear in healthcare, and early results indicate that the approaches might be feasible in patients with diverse conditions, including schizophrenia [22][23][24].…”

Assessment of Multi-Criteria Preference Measurement Methods for a Dynamic Environment

“…ASE is significantly shorter than PASE in Schlereth et al's first survey except for the ranking task, however, no significant differences are reported for their second survey [39]. The survey duration using PCPM is significantly shorter than using ASE and PASE [39]. Meißner et al [30] report an average duration of 6.51 mins for PCPM, 8.10 mins for ASE, and 12.78 mins for ACA, while Netzer and Srinivasan [32] report ACA as fastet (14.45 mins), followed by ASE (15.10 mins) and FastPACE (21.60 mins).…”

“…Mixed results are reported regarding the effort a respondent expends on the preference measurement tasks. ASE is significantly shorter than PASE in Schlereth et al's first survey except for the ranking task, however, no significant differences are reported for their second survey [39]. The survey duration using PCPM is significantly shorter than using ASE and PASE [39].…”

“…However, Schlereth et al [39] argue that if methods stay below the mark of 20 mins, the effort associated is unlikely overwhelming for respondents. Therefore, all evaluated methods except for FastPACE, probably due to implementation issues, are well suited.…”