Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37539251›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

Discrete choice experiments: An overview on constructing

Abdulrahman S Alamri, Stelios Georgiou, Stella Stylianou

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abdulrahman S AlamriSchool of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Stelios GeorgiouSchool of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Stella StylianouSchool of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to estimate and forecast the behavior of an individual's choice. DCEs are based on stated preference; therefore, underlying experimental designs are required for this type of study. According to psychologists, DCE designs consist of a small number of choice sets with a limited size in the number of alternatives within a choice set to increase the response efficiency in the questionnaire. Even though algorithmic constructions (known as efficient designs) become quite common for practitioners, optimal designs (sometimes so-called orthogonal designs) continue to be used in choice experiment studies, particularly in the case that prior information about the extent of the population preference is not available. Various approaches have been developed to construct DCE designs with fewer choice sets. However, the question in many practitioners' minds is which techniques perform better (i.e. given small designs with high efficiency) in a given circumstance. In this paper and to address these concerns, we conducted an overview of the constructions of discrete choice experiments in the literature for models with only main effects. The various ways of constructing optimal and near-optimal designs were compared in terms of their ability to minimize the number of choice sets in the survey. Our findings shed light on the optimal sample sizes needed for efficient experimentation which then can help the researchers to design more effective experiments in this area.

Indexed as

Efficient designsMultinomial logit modelOptimal designsOrthogonal main effect plansStated choice

Identifiers

PMID37539251
PMCPMC10393626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.