Cargando…
Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents
INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are increasingly being conducted using online panels. However, the comparability of such DCE-based preferences to traditional modes of data collection (e.g., in-person) is not well established. In this study, supervised, face-to-face DCE was compared w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37199407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231171912 |
_version_ | 1785089315483680768 |
---|---|
author | Jiang, Ruixuan Pullenayegum, Eleanor Shaw, James W. Mühlbacher, Axel Lee, Todd A. Walton, Surrey Kohlmann, Thomas Norman, Richard Pickard, A. Simon |
author_facet | Jiang, Ruixuan Pullenayegum, Eleanor Shaw, James W. Mühlbacher, Axel Lee, Todd A. Walton, Surrey Kohlmann, Thomas Norman, Richard Pickard, A. Simon |
author_sort | Jiang, Ruixuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are increasingly being conducted using online panels. However, the comparability of such DCE-based preferences to traditional modes of data collection (e.g., in-person) is not well established. In this study, supervised, face-to-face DCE was compared with its unsupervised, online facsimile on face validity, respondent behavior, and modeled preferences. METHODS: Data from face-to-face and online EQ-5D-5L health state valuation studies were compared, in which each used the same experimental design and quota sampling procedure. Respondents completed 7 binary DCE tasks comparing 2 EQ-5D-5L health states presented side by side (health states A and B). Data face validity was assessed by comparing preference patterns as a function of the severity difference between 2 health states within a task. The prevalence of potentially suspicious choice patterns (i.e., all As, all Bs, and alternating As/Bs) was compared between studies. Preference data were modeled using multinomial logit regression and compared based on dimensional contribution to overall scale and importance ranking of dimension-levels. RESULTS: One thousand five Online respondents and 1,099 face-to-face screened (F2F(S)) respondents were included in the main comparison of DCE tasks. Online respondents reported more problems on all EQ-5D dimensions except for Mobility. The face validity of the data was similar between comparators. Online respondents had a greater prevalence of potentially suspicious DCE choice patterns ([Online]: 5.3% [F2F(S)] 2.9%, P = 0.005). When modeled, the relative contribution of each EQ-5D dimension differed between modes of administration. Online respondents weighed Mobility more importantly and Anxiety/Depression less importantly. DISCUSSION: Although assessments of face validity were similar between Online and F2F(S), modeled preferences differed. Future analyses are needed to clarify whether differences are attributable to preference or data quality variation between modes of data collection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10422849 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104228492023-08-13 Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents Jiang, Ruixuan Pullenayegum, Eleanor Shaw, James W. Mühlbacher, Axel Lee, Todd A. Walton, Surrey Kohlmann, Thomas Norman, Richard Pickard, A. Simon Med Decis Making Original Research Articles INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are increasingly being conducted using online panels. However, the comparability of such DCE-based preferences to traditional modes of data collection (e.g., in-person) is not well established. In this study, supervised, face-to-face DCE was compared with its unsupervised, online facsimile on face validity, respondent behavior, and modeled preferences. METHODS: Data from face-to-face and online EQ-5D-5L health state valuation studies were compared, in which each used the same experimental design and quota sampling procedure. Respondents completed 7 binary DCE tasks comparing 2 EQ-5D-5L health states presented side by side (health states A and B). Data face validity was assessed by comparing preference patterns as a function of the severity difference between 2 health states within a task. The prevalence of potentially suspicious choice patterns (i.e., all As, all Bs, and alternating As/Bs) was compared between studies. Preference data were modeled using multinomial logit regression and compared based on dimensional contribution to overall scale and importance ranking of dimension-levels. RESULTS: One thousand five Online respondents and 1,099 face-to-face screened (F2F(S)) respondents were included in the main comparison of DCE tasks. Online respondents reported more problems on all EQ-5D dimensions except for Mobility. The face validity of the data was similar between comparators. Online respondents had a greater prevalence of potentially suspicious DCE choice patterns ([Online]: 5.3% [F2F(S)] 2.9%, P = 0.005). When modeled, the relative contribution of each EQ-5D dimension differed between modes of administration. Online respondents weighed Mobility more importantly and Anxiety/Depression less importantly. DISCUSSION: Although assessments of face validity were similar between Online and F2F(S), modeled preferences differed. Future analyses are needed to clarify whether differences are attributable to preference or data quality variation between modes of data collection. SAGE Publications 2023-05-18 2023-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10422849/ /pubmed/37199407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231171912 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Articles Jiang, Ruixuan Pullenayegum, Eleanor Shaw, James W. Mühlbacher, Axel Lee, Todd A. Walton, Surrey Kohlmann, Thomas Norman, Richard Pickard, A. Simon Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title | Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title_full | Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title_short | Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents |
title_sort | comparison of preferences and data quality between discrete choice experiments conducted in online and face-to-face respondents |
topic | Original Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37199407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231171912 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jiangruixuan comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT pullenayegumeleanor comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT shawjamesw comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT muhlbacheraxel comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT leetodda comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT waltonsurrey comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT kohlmannthomas comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT normanrichard comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents AT pickardasimon comparisonofpreferencesanddataqualitybetweendiscretechoiceexperimentsconductedinonlineandfacetofacerespondents |