Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.

Trends in Amplification Pub Date : 2012-03-01 Epub Date: 2012-04-17 DOI:10.1177/1084713811434617
John F P Bridges, Angela T Lataille, Christine Buttorff, Sharon White, John K Niparko
{"title":"Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.","authors":"John F P Bridges,&nbsp;Angela T Lataille,&nbsp;Christine Buttorff,&nbsp;Sharon White,&nbsp;John K Niparko","doi":"10.1177/1084713811434617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study of consumer preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two approaches often produce inconsistent results. The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss. Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative research: performance in quiet settings, comfort, feedback, frequency of battery replacement, purchase price, water and sweat resistance, and performance in noisy settings. The preferences of 75 outpatients with hearing loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analyzed using OLS [ordinary least squares] and logistic regression). Results were compared by examining implied willingness-to-pay and Pearson's Rho. A total of 56 respondents (75%) provided complete responses. Two thirds of respondents were male, most had sensorineural hearing loss, and most were older than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid. Both methods identified improved performance in noisy settings as the most valued attribute. Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environments (p < .001), and willingness to pay for this attribute ranged from US$2674 on the Likert to US$9000 in the conjoint analysis. The authors find a high level of concordance between the methods-a result that is in stark contrast with previous research. The authors conclude that their result stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":48972,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Amplification","volume":"16 1","pages":"40-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1084713811434617","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Amplification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713811434617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study of consumer preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two approaches often produce inconsistent results. The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss. Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative research: performance in quiet settings, comfort, feedback, frequency of battery replacement, purchase price, water and sweat resistance, and performance in noisy settings. The preferences of 75 outpatients with hearing loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analyzed using OLS [ordinary least squares] and logistic regression). Results were compared by examining implied willingness-to-pay and Pearson's Rho. A total of 56 respondents (75%) provided complete responses. Two thirds of respondents were male, most had sensorineural hearing loss, and most were older than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid. Both methods identified improved performance in noisy settings as the most valued attribute. Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environments (p < .001), and willingness to pay for this attribute ranged from US$2674 on the Likert to US$9000 in the conjoint analysis. The authors find a high level of concordance between the methods-a result that is in stark contrast with previous research. The authors conclude that their result stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.

消费者对助听器属性的偏好:一种比较评级和联合分析的方法。
由于助听器使用率低,人们越来越关注使用简单评分(如李克特量表)和联合分析来研究消费者偏好,但这两种方法往往产生不一致的结果。本研究旨在直接比较李克特量表和联合分析在听力损失人群中识别与助听器相关的重要属性。通过定性研究确定了助听器的七个属性:安静环境下的性能、舒适性、反馈、更换电池的频率、购买价格、防水和防汗性以及嘈杂环境下的性能。采用5点李克特量表和8个配对比较联合任务(后者采用OLS[普通最小二乘法]和逻辑回归分析)对75名听力损失门诊患者的偏好进行了测量。通过检查隐含支付意愿和皮尔逊的Rho来比较结果。共有56名受访者(75%)提供了完整的答复。三分之二的受访者为男性,大多数患有感音神经性听力损失,大多数年龄在50岁以上;44%的受访者从未使用过助听器。这两种方法都将噪声环境下的性能改进作为最有价值的属性。受访者在嘈杂环境中购买功能更好的助听器的可能性是前者的两倍(p < 0.001),并且愿意为此属性支付的费用从Likert的2674美元到联合分析中的9000美元不等。作者发现两种方法之间高度一致,这一结果与之前的研究形成鲜明对比。作者得出结论,他们的结果源于限制李克特量表的水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trends in Amplification
Trends in Amplification AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信