ArticlePloS one2014
A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study.The patient · 2024Trial
- Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.The patient · 2023Trial
- "I Was Trying to Do the Maths": Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2019Trial
- Content validity, face validity and comprehensiveness of generic quality-of-life measures in adults and children with rare genetic conditions and their carers: a think aloud qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Understanding decision-making strategies in discrete choice experiment tasks when valuing health states that include duration, a cognitive interview study with Australian adults.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Acceptability of Sharing Internet Browsing History for Cancer Research: Think-Aloud and Interview Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Is best-worst scaling suitable for patient preference elicitation? A nationwide representative comparison with discrete choice experiments among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Article
- An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Review
- Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications.The patient · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Preferences in China: A Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Residents' Preferences for Inclusive Commercial Health Insurance: A Comparative Study of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling in Heilongjiang Province, China.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Eliciting Depression Patients' Preferences for Medication Management: A Protocol for Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Trade-Offs between Vaccine Effectiveness and Vaccine Safety: Personal versus Policy Decisions.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Preferences for Enhanced Primary Care Services Among Older Individuals and Primary Care Physicians.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Article
- Understanding the valuation of paediatric health-related quality of life: a qualitative study protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study provides insights into the validity and acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and profile-case Best Worst Scaling (BWS) methods for eliciting preferences for health care in a priority-setting context.
methodsAn adult sample (N = 24) undertook a traditional DCE and a BWS choice task as part of a wider survey on Health Technology Assessment decision criteria. A 'think aloud' protocol was applied, whereby participants verbalized their thinking while making choices. Internal validity and acceptability were assessed through a thematic analysis of the decision-making process emerging from the qualitative data and a repeated choice task.
resultsA thematic analysis of the decision-making process demonstrated clear evidence of 'trading' between multiple attribute/levels for the DCE, and to a lesser extent for the BWS task. Limited evidence consistent with a sequential decision-making model was observed for the BWS task. For the BWS task, some participants found choosing the worst attribute/level conceptually challenging. A desire to provide a complete ranking from best to worst was observed. The majority (18,75%) of participants indicated a preference for DCE, as they felt this enabled comparison of alternative full profiles. Those preferring BWS were averse to choosing an undesirable characteristic that was part of a 'package', or perceived BWS to be less ethically conflicting or burdensome. In a repeated choice task, more participants were consistent for the DCE (22,92%) than BWS (10,42%) (p = 0.002).
conclusionsThis study supports the validity and acceptability of the traditional DCE format. Findings relating to the application of BWS profile methods are less definitive. Research avenues to further clarify the comparative merits of these preference elicitation methods are identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.