Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39883691›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Incorporating preference uncertainty in best worst scaling.

Francisco J Areal, Rubén Perez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Francisco J ArealNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4625-7680
Rubén PerezCentro Universitario Ciudad de Mendoza, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we enhance the Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) method by incorporating participants' preference uncertainty into the conventional BWS, known as case 1. In this context, respondents are tasked with making trade-offs among a set of items of interest. Applying this novel extended BWS method to a sample of Argentinian wine consumers (n = 342), we aim to a) provide a more informative elicitation of consumers' relative preferences for 16 wine attributes; b) identify the level of uncertainty with each of the attributes, exploring differences between the most and least important wine attributes influencing purchasing wine; and c) compare the results of the extended BWS with the standard BWS. Our findings indicate variability in uncertainty levels on the importance of wine attributes when purchasing wine within and across attributes. Moreover, accounting for participants' preference uncertainty can alter the ranking of preferences obtained through the standard approach. This alteration is due to both accounting for preference uncertainty itself as well as the uncertainty indicator used. Although this approach is a way to mitigate biases associated with respondents' preference certainty, it is recommended that preference uncertainty heterogeneity is investigated using different indicators.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorWineAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39883691
PMCPMC11781646

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.