Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?

This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation methods, even beyond scale and scale dynamics. First choices of best-worst had good choice consistency, scale dynamics and statistical efficiency, but this method’s second choices performed worst. Ranking performed best on respondent-reported difficulty and preference; best-best’s second choices on statistical efficiency. All three preference elicitation methods improve efficiency of data collection relative to using first choices only. However, differences in preferences between first and second choices challenge moving beyond single-best DCE. If nevertheless doing so, best-best and ranking are preferred over best-worst DCE.

Netspar, Network for Studies on Pensions, Aging and Retirement, is een denktank en kennisnetwerk. Netspar is gericht op een goed geïnformeerd pensioendebat.

MEER OVER NETSPAR


Missie en strategie           •           Netwerk           •           Organisatie           •          Podcasts
Board Brief            •            Werkprogramma 2019-2023           •           Onderzoeksagenda

OVER NETSPAR

Onze partners

B20160708_university of groningen
B20160615_pggmgroengrijs_grijswaarden_small
B20220518_BNP Paribas logo_voettekst
B20211201_Cardano_Logo 2021_website
B20160708_afm
Bekijk al onze partners