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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Ruixuan, Pullenayegum, Eleanor, Shaw, James W., Mühlbacher, Axel, Lee, Todd A., Walton, Surrey, Kohlmann, Thomas, Norman, Richard, Pickard, A. Simon
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