Literature DB >> 10903539

Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability.

S Bryan1, L Gold, R Sheldon, M Buxton.   

Abstract

The application of conjoint measurement to the field of health economics is relatively new, although there is growing interest and there have been a number of studies undertaken recently. Wider acceptance of the technique requires methodological issues concerning both reliability and validity to be addressed. This paper reports an empirical investigation of the test-retest reliability of the discrete choice conjoint measurement approach in health care. This investigation of conjoint reliability was framed using the clinical context of investigation and treatment of knee injuries. A high level of reliability at both the input data and results levels was demonstrated. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10903539     DOI: 10.1002/1099-1050(200007)9:5<385::aid-hec533>3.0.co;2-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  14 in total

1.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Tara Maddala; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; F Reed Johnson; Tara Maddala
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-10

4.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Harry Telser; Karolin Becker; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease.

Authors:  Rachael L Morton; Paul Snelling; Angela C Webster; John Rose; Rosemary Masterson; David W Johnson; Kirsten Howard
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

7.  How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments?

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Ateesha F Mohamed; Semra Ozdemir; Deborah A Marshall; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Eliciting patients' preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Nina Lathia; Pierre K Isogai; Scott E Walker; Carlo De Angelis; Matthew C Cheung; Jeffrey S Hoch; Nicole Mittmann
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Mark Sculpher; Stirling Bryan; Pat Fry; Patricia de Winter; Heather Payne; Mark Emberton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-29

10.  How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; F Reed Johnson; Nathalie A Kulin; Semra Ozdemir; Judith M E Walsh; John K Marshall; Stephanie Van Bebber; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.