Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations

Abstract

Attribute generation for discrete choice experiments (DCEs) is often poorly reported, and it is unclear whether this element of research is conducted rigorously. This paper explores issues associated with developing attributes for DCEs and contrasts different qualitative approaches. The paper draws on eight studies, four developed attributes for measures, and four developed attributes for more ad hoc policy questions. Issues that have become apparent through these studies include the following: the theoretical framework for random utility theory and the need for attributes that are neither too close to the latent construct nor too intrinsic to people's personality; the need to think about attribute development as a two-stage process involving conceptual development followed by refinement of language to convey the intended meaning; and the difficulty in resolving tensions inherent in the reductiveness of condensing complex and nuanced qualitative findings into precise terms. The comparison of alternative qualitative approaches suggests that the nature of data collection will depend both on the characteristics of the question (its sensitivity, for example) and the availability of existing qualitative information. An iterative, constant comparative approach to analysis is recommended. Finally, the paper provides a series of recommendations for improving the reporting of this element of DCE studies.

Complex Valuation: Applying Ideas from the Complex Intervention Framework to Valuation of a New Measure for End-of-Life Care

“…Although the important attributes had been established through detailed qualitative work [4,9], there was remaining uncertainty about the final design in terms of the number of response categories ('levels'). The qualitative work suggested that four response categories would be most appropriate because informants did not generally feel that having an attribute 'all of the time' was realistic in terms of what could be achieved by and for those at the end of life.…”

“…The importance of adequately conducting and reporting development work prior to instrument valuation has recently been highlighted [4] but similar arguments are applicable to conducting and reporting pilot studies for valuation exercises; piloting is often mentioned in just one or two sentences and is seldom described in detail, thus it is difficult to discern its impact on the final study design. In contrast, the MRC framework emphasises the importance of using pilot work to "examine key uncertainties that have been identified during development" (Craig,[3] p.981) and highlights the importance of wide dissemination [3].…”

Are consumers willing to pay more for electricity from cooperatives? Results from an online Choice Experiment in Germany

“…Starting with an initial list of nine attributes, we reduced their number through prestudies and pre-tests, following the procedure suggested by Coast et al (2012).…”

Pharmacogenetic testing prior to carbamazepine treatment of epilepsy: patients' and physicians' preferences for testing and service delivery

“…This study represents a thorough application of cognitive interviews to support the face validity of the design of the DCE and the presentation of risk attributes, and associated trading tasks. A comparable approach was taken with neurologists, which included a literature review and structured interviews, consistent with guidelines for DCE attribute selection [24]. Our inclusion of both patients' and clinicians' perspectives represents an important addition to the emerging literature on preference-elicitation in pharmacogenetics.…”