A Step-by-Step Procedure to Implement Discrete Choice Experiments in Qualtrics

Abstract

Discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a well-established technique to elicit stated preferences. It is frequently used in social sciences, where revealed preferences are difficult or sometimes even impossible to collect. A DCE consists in a series of choice tasks, in which survey respondents are requested to select the alternative they prefer among a few ones. Even though DCEs are conceptually well-known and documented, the practitioner may face technical issues once turning to their concrete implementation. This methodological note provides a step-by-step procedure to implement a DCE using the survey software Qualtrics. The procedure is largely automated, relying on the statistical software Stata and using HTML code to display the choice tasks in a pleasant way. Basic knowledge of Stata and HTML is desirable but not an absolute requirement. This note is intended to Qualtrics users, and prior knowledge of this survey tool is therefore assumed. A full working example with all codes and material is provided and presented.

Keywords

discrete choice experiment (DCE)experimental design online survey Qualtrics Stata HTML code

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carlsson

Martinsson

. (2003). Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics, 12, 281–294. doi.:10.1002/hec.729

Coast

Horrocks

. (2007). Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 12, 25–30. doi:10.1258/135581907779497602

de Bekker-Grob

E. W.

Donkers

Jonker

M. F.

Stolk

E. A

. (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient, 8, 373–384. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z

Demel

Mariel

Meyerhoff

. (2019). Job preferences of business and economics students. International Journal of Manpower, 40, 473–499. doi:10.1108/IJM-09-2017-0249

Dropp

K. A

. (2014). Implementing a conjoint analysis design in Qualtrics (Working Paper). Dartmouth College. Retrieved from: www.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/9/12094568/conjoint.pdf

Franchino

Zucchini

. (2015). Voting in a multi-dimensional space: A conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods, 3, 221–241. doi:10.1017/psrm.2014.24

Gundlach

Ehrlinspiel

Kirsch

Koschker

Sagebiel

. (2018). Investigating people’s preferences for car-free city centers: A discrete choice experiment. Transportation Research Part D, 63, 677–688. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.004

Hauber

A. B.

González

J. M.

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

C. G. M.

Prior

Marshall

D. A.

Cunningham

… Bridges

J. F. P.

(2016). Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value in Health, 19, 300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004

Hille

Weber

Brosch

(2019). Consumers’ preferences for electricity-saving programs: Evidence from a choice-based conjoint study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 800–815. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.142

10.

Hole

A. R

. (2015). DCREATE: Stata module to create efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s458059.

11.

Hoyos

. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69, 1595–1603. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011

12.

Humburg

van der Velden

(2015). Skills and the graduate recruitment process: Evidence from two discrete choice experiments. Economics of Education Review, 49, 24–41. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.07.001

13.

Jann

. (2016). Creating LaTeX documents from within Stata using texdoc. The Stata Journal, 16, 245–263. doi:10.1177%2F1536867X1601600201

14.

Johnson

F. R.

Lancsar

Marshall

Kilambi

Mühlbacher

Regier

D. A.

… Bridges

J. F. P

. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

15.

Kubli

Loock

Wüstenhagen

. (2018). The flexible prosumer: Measuring the willingness to co-create distributed flexibility. Energy Policy, 114, 540–548. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.044

16.

Lancsar

Fiebig

D. G.

Hole

A. R

. (2017). Discrete choice experiments: A guide to model specification, estimation and software. PharmacoEconomics, 35, 697–716. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0506-4

17.

Louviere

J. J.

Flynn

T. N.

Carson

R. T

. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3, 57–72. doi:10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9

18.

T. C.

Angell

Dunn

Ford

White

Keay

. (2019). Determining patient preferences in a glaucoma service: A discrete choice experiment. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. doi:10.1111/ceo.13606

19.

Mangham

L. J.

Hanson

McPake

. (2009). How to do (or not to do)…Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning, 24, 151–158. doi.:10.1093/heapol/czn047

20.

McFadden

(1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka

(Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

21.

Rose

J. M.

Bliemer

M. C. J

. (2009). Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 29, 587–617. doi:10.1080/01441640902827623

22.

Rose

J. M.

Bliemer

M. C. J

. (2013). Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation, 40, 1021–1041. doi:10.1007/s11116-013-9451-z

23.

Soekhai

de Bekker-Grob

E. W

Ellis

A. R

Vass

C. M

. (2019). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics, 37, 201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2

24.

Soliño

Farizo

B. A

. (2014). Personal traits underlying environmental preferences: A discrete choice experiment. PLOS One, 9, e89603. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089603

25.

Stoiber

Schubert

Hoerler

Burger

. (2019). Will consumers prefer shared and pooled-use autonomous vehicles? A stated choice experiment with Swiss households. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 265–282. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.019

26.

Street

D. J.

Burgess

Louviere

J. J

. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 459–470. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003

27.

Weber

Burger

Farsi

Martinez-Cruz

A. L.

Puntiroli

Schubert

Volland

(2017). Swiss household energy demand survey (SHEDS): Goals, design, and implementation. SCCER CREST, Work Package 2, Working Paper WP2.

28.

World Health Organization. (2012). How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: A user guide with case studies”, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/hrh/resources/dceguide/en/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.05 MB

0.00 MB