强烈偏好还是简化启发式?使用内部效度测试和潜在类分析来更好地理解陈述偏好调查结果。健康偏好研究中的一个案例。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Karen V MacDonald, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, F Reed Johnson, Deborah A Marshall
{"title":"强烈偏好还是简化启发式?使用内部效度测试和潜在类分析来更好地理解陈述偏好调查结果。健康偏好研究中的一个案例。","authors":"Karen V MacDonald, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, F Reed Johnson, Deborah A Marshall","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Internal-validity tests (IVTs) are used in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to check decision heuristics, choice logic, response consistency, and tradeoffs. There is no standard for how many IVT failures classify respondents as having unacceptable data quality or how to account for failures in choice models. We assessed IVT failures and used latent class analysis to identify choice patterns consistent with statistically informative DCE data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a DCE with 4 attributes (3 ordered), 12 experimental choice tasks, and 2 constructed IVT choice tasks. Respondents with IVT failures were asked questions about their choices. We evaluated preference heterogeneity controlling for attribute dominance using a 4-class latent class model with attribute-specific alternative-specific constants and compared with a 1-class model without attribute-specific alternative-specific constants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 201 respondents, 34 had IVT failures of which 38% to 42% provided reasons other than nonattendance or simplifying heuristics. Comparing the 4-class latent class model no-dominance class with the 1-class model, the coefficients of 2 ordered attributes were significantly different, illustrating potential bias due to simplifying heuristics. Attribute-specific dominance class probability varied by number of choice tasks respondents exhibited attribute dominance on, ranging from 8 to 10 for a class-membership probability of 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IVT \"failures\" should be interpreted as unexpected responses warranting further inquiry. Including understanding questions could yield insights about stated preferences; however, these increase respondent burden and may not explain simplifying heuristics. Single subjective \"rules of thumb\" for attribute dominance thresholds may not be adequate. Latent class models controlling for attribute dominance are a data-driven approach that should be considered to assess simplifying heuristics and attribute dominance thresholds.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strong Preferences or Simplifying Heuristics? Using Internal Validity Tests and Latent Class Analysis to Better Understand Stated Preference Survey Results. A Case Example in Health Preferences Research.\",\"authors\":\"Karen V MacDonald, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, F Reed Johnson, Deborah A Marshall\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Internal-validity tests (IVTs) are used in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to check decision heuristics, choice logic, response consistency, and tradeoffs. There is no standard for how many IVT failures classify respondents as having unacceptable data quality or how to account for failures in choice models. We assessed IVT failures and used latent class analysis to identify choice patterns consistent with statistically informative DCE data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a DCE with 4 attributes (3 ordered), 12 experimental choice tasks, and 2 constructed IVT choice tasks. Respondents with IVT failures were asked questions about their choices. We evaluated preference heterogeneity controlling for attribute dominance using a 4-class latent class model with attribute-specific alternative-specific constants and compared with a 1-class model without attribute-specific alternative-specific constants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 201 respondents, 34 had IVT failures of which 38% to 42% provided reasons other than nonattendance or simplifying heuristics. Comparing the 4-class latent class model no-dominance class with the 1-class model, the coefficients of 2 ordered attributes were significantly different, illustrating potential bias due to simplifying heuristics. Attribute-specific dominance class probability varied by number of choice tasks respondents exhibited attribute dominance on, ranging from 8 to 10 for a class-membership probability of 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IVT \\\"failures\\\" should be interpreted as unexpected responses warranting further inquiry. Including understanding questions could yield insights about stated preferences; however, these increase respondent burden and may not explain simplifying heuristics. Single subjective \\\"rules of thumb\\\" for attribute dominance thresholds may not be adequate. Latent class models controlling for attribute dominance are a data-driven approach that should be considered to assess simplifying heuristics and attribute dominance thresholds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.015\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在离散选择实验(dce)中使用内部效度测试(IVTs)来检查决策启发式,选择逻辑,反应一致性和权衡。对于有多少IVT失败将受访者归类为具有不可接受的数据质量,或者如何解释选择模型中的失败,没有标准。我们评估了IVT失败,并使用潜在类分析来确定与统计信息DCE数据一致的选择模式。方法:采用包含4个属性(3个有序)、12个实验选择任务和2个构造选择任务的DCE。IVT失败的受访者被问及他们的选择。我们使用带有属性特定可选特定常数(ASCs)的4类潜在类模型评估了控制属性优势的偏好异质性,并与没有属性特定可选特定常数的1类模型进行了比较。结果:在201名受访者中,有34人有IVT失败,其中38-42%的原因不是不出席或简化启发式。4类潜类模型的无优势类与1类模型相比,2个有序属性的系数存在显著差异,说明简化启发式算法可能存在偏差。属性特定的优势类概率随被调查者表现出属性优势的选择任务的数量而变化,类别成员概率为50%,范围为8-10。结论:IVT“失败”应被解释为需要进一步调查的意外反应。包括理解问题可以产生关于陈述偏好的见解,但这些增加了受访者的负担,并且可能无法解释简化启发式。单一主观的“经验法则”对于属性优势阈值可能是不够的。控制属性优势的潜在类模型是一种数据驱动的方法,应该考虑评估简化启发式和属性优势阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strong Preferences or Simplifying Heuristics? Using Internal Validity Tests and Latent Class Analysis to Better Understand Stated Preference Survey Results. A Case Example in Health Preferences Research.

Objectives: Internal-validity tests (IVTs) are used in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to check decision heuristics, choice logic, response consistency, and tradeoffs. There is no standard for how many IVT failures classify respondents as having unacceptable data quality or how to account for failures in choice models. We assessed IVT failures and used latent class analysis to identify choice patterns consistent with statistically informative DCE data.

Methods: We conducted a DCE with 4 attributes (3 ordered), 12 experimental choice tasks, and 2 constructed IVT choice tasks. Respondents with IVT failures were asked questions about their choices. We evaluated preference heterogeneity controlling for attribute dominance using a 4-class latent class model with attribute-specific alternative-specific constants and compared with a 1-class model without attribute-specific alternative-specific constants.

Results: Of the 201 respondents, 34 had IVT failures of which 38% to 42% provided reasons other than nonattendance or simplifying heuristics. Comparing the 4-class latent class model no-dominance class with the 1-class model, the coefficients of 2 ordered attributes were significantly different, illustrating potential bias due to simplifying heuristics. Attribute-specific dominance class probability varied by number of choice tasks respondents exhibited attribute dominance on, ranging from 8 to 10 for a class-membership probability of 50%.

Conclusions: IVT "failures" should be interpreted as unexpected responses warranting further inquiry. Including understanding questions could yield insights about stated preferences; however, these increase respondent burden and may not explain simplifying heuristics. Single subjective "rules of thumb" for attribute dominance thresholds may not be adequate. Latent class models controlling for attribute dominance are a data-driven approach that should be considered to assess simplifying heuristics and attribute dominance thresholds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信