The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments.

We analyse stated preference data over nursing jobs collected from two different discrete choice experiments: a multi-profile case best-worst scaling experiment (BWS) prompting selection of the best and worst among alternative jobs, and a profile case BWS wherein the respondents choose the best and worst job attributes. The latter allows identification of additional utility parameters and is believed to be cognitively easier. Results suggest that respondents place greater value on pecuniary over non-pecuniary gains in the multi-profile case. There is little evidence that this discrepancy is induced by the extra cognitive burden of processing several profiles at once in the multi-profile case. We offer thoughts on other likely mechanisms.