Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains

IF 2.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Journal of Choice Modelling Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100489
Sander Boxebeld
{"title":"Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains","authors":"Sander Boxebeld","doi":"10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in several scientific domains. Since their results may be used to inform governmental decision-making, it is important that the validity of the method is continuously scrutinized. An often-studied design artefact is the impact of the presentation order of alternatives, attributes, and choice sets on the results of a DCE. No systematic review of the literature on ordering effects existed until now, and many applied studies using a DCE do not explicitly consider the role of ordering effects. I conducted a systematic review of the literature on ordering effects in this study. Using a three-step snowball sampling strategy, 85 studies were identified across various scientific domains. The majority of included studies documented statistically significant ordering effects. Alternative and attribute ordering effects are primarily caused by lexicographic behaviours, while choice set ordering effects seem to be caused by respondent learning, fatigue, or anchoring. Although ordering effects may not always occur, the majority of studies that did find statistically significant effects warrants the use of mitigation methods. An overview of potential mitigation methods for the applied DCE literature is presented, including randomization of presentation orders, advance disclosure of DCE core elements, and inclusion of alternative-specific constants (ASCs), attribute level overlap, and an instructional choice set (ICS). Finally, several directions for future methodological research on this topic are provided, particularly regarding heterogeneity in ordering effects by study design traits and respondent characteristics, and interactions between ordering effects. Insights in these aspects would further our understanding of respondents’ processing of DCEs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46863,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Choice Modelling","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 100489"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Choice Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000216","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in several scientific domains. Since their results may be used to inform governmental decision-making, it is important that the validity of the method is continuously scrutinized. An often-studied design artefact is the impact of the presentation order of alternatives, attributes, and choice sets on the results of a DCE. No systematic review of the literature on ordering effects existed until now, and many applied studies using a DCE do not explicitly consider the role of ordering effects. I conducted a systematic review of the literature on ordering effects in this study. Using a three-step snowball sampling strategy, 85 studies were identified across various scientific domains. The majority of included studies documented statistically significant ordering effects. Alternative and attribute ordering effects are primarily caused by lexicographic behaviours, while choice set ordering effects seem to be caused by respondent learning, fatigue, or anchoring. Although ordering effects may not always occur, the majority of studies that did find statistically significant effects warrants the use of mitigation methods. An overview of potential mitigation methods for the applied DCE literature is presented, including randomization of presentation orders, advance disclosure of DCE core elements, and inclusion of alternative-specific constants (ASCs), attribute level overlap, and an instructional choice set (ICS). Finally, several directions for future methodological research on this topic are provided, particularly regarding heterogeneity in ordering effects by study design traits and respondent characteristics, and interactions between ordering effects. Insights in these aspects would further our understanding of respondents’ processing of DCEs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
离散选择实验中的排序效应:跨领域系统文献综述
离散选择实验(DCE)越来越多地应用于多个科学领域。由于其结果可能会为政府决策提供信息,因此对该方法的有效性进行持续审查非常重要。一个经常被研究的设计工件是备选方案、属性和选择集的呈现顺序对 DCE 结果的影响。到目前为止,还没有关于排序效应的系统性文献综述,许多使用 DCE 的应用研究也没有明确考虑排序效应的作用。在本研究中,我对有关排序效应的文献进行了系统回顾。通过三步滚雪球式抽样策略,我们确定了 85 项涉及不同科学领域的研究。所纳入的大多数研究都记录了具有统计意义的排序效应。替代和属性排序效应主要是由词法行为引起的,而选择集排序效应似乎是由受访者的学习、疲劳或锚定引起的。虽然排序效应不一定总是发生,但大多数研究确实发现了统计意义上的显著效应,因此有必要使用缓解方法。本文概述了应用 DCE 文献中的潜在缓解方法,包括随机化呈现顺序、提前披露 DCE 核心要素、纳入特定替代常数 (ASC)、属性水平重叠和教学选择集 (ICS)。最后,我们还提供了本课题未来方法论研究的几个方向,特别是研究设计特征和受访者特征在排序效果上的异质性,以及排序效果之间的交互作用。这些方面的见解将进一步加深我们对受访者处理 DCE 的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Latent class choice models with an error structure: Investigating potential unobserved associations between latent segmentation and behavior generation Model choice and framing effects: Do discrete choice modeling decisions affect loss aversion estimates? A consistent moment equations for binary probit models with endogenous variables using instrumental variables Transformation-based flexible error structures for choice modeling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1