The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments

to determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs. 781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a que...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2014-11, Vol.9 (11), p.e111805-e111805
Hauptverfasser: Veldwijk, Jorien, Lambooij, Mattijs S, de Bekker-Grob, Esther W, Smit, Henriëtte A, de Wit, G Ardine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e111805
container_issue 11
container_start_page e111805
container_title PloS one
container_volume 9
creator Veldwijk, Jorien
Lambooij, Mattijs S
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W
Smit, Henriëtte A
de Wit, G Ardine
description to determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs. 781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a questionnaire containing nine choice tasks with an opt-out option and nice forced choice tasks. Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five lifestyle program related attributes that were included. Willingness to pay (WTP) values were calculated and it was tested whether results differed between respondents who answered the choice tasks with an opt-out option in the first or second part of the questionnaire. 21.4% of the respondents always opted out. Respondents who were given the opt-out option in the first part of the questionnaire as well as lower educated respondents significantly more often opted out. For both the forced and unforced choice model, different attributes showed significant estimates, the relative importance of the attributes was equal. However, due to differences in relative importance weights, the WTP values for the PA schedule differed significantly between both datasets. Results show differences in opting out based on the location of the opt-out option and respondents' educational level; this resulted in small differences between the forced and unforced choice model. Since respondents seem to learn from answering forced choice tasks, a dual response design might result in higher data quality compared to offering a direct opt-out option. Future research should empirically explore how choice sets should be presented to make them as easy and less complex as possible in order to reduce the proportion of respondents that opts-out due to choice task complexity. Moreover, future research should debrief respondents to examine the reasons for choosing the opt-out alternative.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0111805
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1619502611</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A416969068</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_961c75a54a4341cdbb9c56a594b8096b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A416969068</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f282295010c0fb77b390b8940a6ff1a992c5127ef71811bb408d113da83a64343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNklFvFCEUhYnR2Lr6D4xOYmL0YVcuDAy8mDSN2k2aNNHqK2EY2KWZHdaBMfXfy7jTZsf0wfAAge8euIeD0EvAK6AVfLgJQ9_pdrUPnV1hABCYPUKnIClZcoLp46P1CXoW4w3GjArOn6ITwihnwOUpurje2sI6Z00qgit8Z9qh8d2m0F0R9mkZhjTOPnT5rGh8NL1NtjDb4E0uvN3b3u9sl-Jz9MTpNtoX07xA3z9_uj6_WF5efVmfn10uDZckLR0RhEiGARvs6qqqqcS1kCXW3DnQUhLDgFTWVSAA6rrEogGgjRZU85KWdIFeH3T3bYhqMiEq4JBVCc_sAq0PRBP0jdrn9-n-twraq78bod8o3SdvWqskB1MxzUqdpcE0dS0N45rJshZY8jprfZxuG-qdbUzutNftTHR-0vmt2oRfqiQgRHZ-gd5NAn34OdiY1C57aNtWdzYM47sJZqKiTGT0zT_ow91N1EbnBnznQr7XjKLqrMxfyiXmo9bqASqPxu68yYlxPu_PCt7PCjKT7G3a6CFGtf729f_Zqx9z9u0Ru7W6TdsY2mFMVJyD5QE0fYixt-7eZMBqDPydG2oMvJoCn8teHX_QfdFdwukfD3X4tA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1619502611</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Veldwijk, Jorien ; Lambooij, Mattijs S ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W ; Smit, Henriëtte A ; de Wit, G Ardine</creator><contributor>Cameron, D. William</contributor><creatorcontrib>Veldwijk, Jorien ; Lambooij, Mattijs S ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W ; Smit, Henriëtte A ; de Wit, G Ardine ; Cameron, D. William</creatorcontrib><description>to determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs. 781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a questionnaire containing nine choice tasks with an opt-out option and nice forced choice tasks. Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five lifestyle program related attributes that were included. Willingness to pay (WTP) values were calculated and it was tested whether results differed between respondents who answered the choice tasks with an opt-out option in the first or second part of the questionnaire. 21.4% of the respondents always opted out. Respondents who were given the opt-out option in the first part of the questionnaire as well as lower educated respondents significantly more often opted out. For both the forced and unforced choice model, different attributes showed significant estimates, the relative importance of the attributes was equal. However, due to differences in relative importance weights, the WTP values for the PA schedule differed significantly between both datasets. Results show differences in opting out based on the location of the opt-out option and respondents' educational level; this resulted in small differences between the forced and unforced choice model. Since respondents seem to learn from answering forced choice tasks, a dual response design might result in higher data quality compared to offering a direct opt-out option. Future research should empirically explore how choice sets should be presented to make them as easy and less complex as possible in order to reduce the proportion of respondents that opts-out due to choice task complexity. Moreover, future research should debrief respondents to examine the reasons for choosing the opt-out alternative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111805</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25365169</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Analysis ; Choice Behavior ; Colorectal cancer ; Datasets ; Diabetes ; Diabetes mellitus ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - psychology ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - therapy ; Economic models ; Efficiency ; Engineering and Technology ; Estimates ; Experiments ; Female ; Health sciences ; Health services ; Health surveys ; Humans ; Logit models ; Male ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Netherlands ; Nutrition ; Primary care ; Public health ; Questionnaires ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Task complexity ; Type 2 diabetes</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-11, Vol.9 (11), p.e111805-e111805</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Veldwijk et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Veldwijk et al 2014 Veldwijk et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f282295010c0fb77b390b8940a6ff1a992c5127ef71811bb408d113da83a64343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f282295010c0fb77b390b8940a6ff1a992c5127ef71811bb408d113da83a64343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218820/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218820/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,729,782,786,866,887,2104,2930,23873,27931,27932,53798,53800</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365169$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Cameron, D. William</contributor><creatorcontrib>Veldwijk, Jorien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambooij, Mattijs S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smit, Henriëtte A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, G Ardine</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>to determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs. 781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a questionnaire containing nine choice tasks with an opt-out option and nice forced choice tasks. Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five lifestyle program related attributes that were included. Willingness to pay (WTP) values were calculated and it was tested whether results differed between respondents who answered the choice tasks with an opt-out option in the first or second part of the questionnaire. 21.4% of the respondents always opted out. Respondents who were given the opt-out option in the first part of the questionnaire as well as lower educated respondents significantly more often opted out. For both the forced and unforced choice model, different attributes showed significant estimates, the relative importance of the attributes was equal. However, due to differences in relative importance weights, the WTP values for the PA schedule differed significantly between both datasets. Results show differences in opting out based on the location of the opt-out option and respondents' educational level; this resulted in small differences between the forced and unforced choice model. Since respondents seem to learn from answering forced choice tasks, a dual response design might result in higher data quality compared to offering a direct opt-out option. Future research should empirically explore how choice sets should be presented to make them as easy and less complex as possible in order to reduce the proportion of respondents that opts-out due to choice task complexity. Moreover, future research should debrief respondents to examine the reasons for choosing the opt-out alternative.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - psychology</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - therapy</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logit models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Task complexity</subject><subject>Type 2 diabetes</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNklFvFCEUhYnR2Lr6D4xOYmL0YVcuDAy8mDSN2k2aNNHqK2EY2KWZHdaBMfXfy7jTZsf0wfAAge8euIeD0EvAK6AVfLgJQ9_pdrUPnV1hABCYPUKnIClZcoLp46P1CXoW4w3GjArOn6ITwihnwOUpurje2sI6Z00qgit8Z9qh8d2m0F0R9mkZhjTOPnT5rGh8NL1NtjDb4E0uvN3b3u9sl-Jz9MTpNtoX07xA3z9_uj6_WF5efVmfn10uDZckLR0RhEiGARvs6qqqqcS1kCXW3DnQUhLDgFTWVSAA6rrEogGgjRZU85KWdIFeH3T3bYhqMiEq4JBVCc_sAq0PRBP0jdrn9-n-twraq78bod8o3SdvWqskB1MxzUqdpcE0dS0N45rJshZY8jprfZxuG-qdbUzutNftTHR-0vmt2oRfqiQgRHZ-gd5NAn34OdiY1C57aNtWdzYM47sJZqKiTGT0zT_ow91N1EbnBnznQr7XjKLqrMxfyiXmo9bqASqPxu68yYlxPu_PCt7PCjKT7G3a6CFGtf729f_Zqx9z9u0Ru7W6TdsY2mFMVJyD5QE0fYixt-7eZMBqDPydG2oMvJoCn8teHX_QfdFdwukfD3X4tA</recordid><startdate>20141103</startdate><enddate>20141103</enddate><creator>Veldwijk, Jorien</creator><creator>Lambooij, Mattijs S</creator><creator>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creator><creator>Smit, Henriëtte A</creator><creator>de Wit, G Ardine</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141103</creationdate><title>The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments</title><author>Veldwijk, Jorien ; Lambooij, Mattijs S ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W ; Smit, Henriëtte A ; de Wit, G Ardine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f282295010c0fb77b390b8940a6ff1a992c5127ef71811bb408d113da83a64343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - psychology</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - therapy</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logit models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Task complexity</topic><topic>Type 2 diabetes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Veldwijk, Jorien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambooij, Mattijs S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smit, Henriëtte A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, G Ardine</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Veldwijk, Jorien</au><au>Lambooij, Mattijs S</au><au>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</au><au>Smit, Henriëtte A</au><au>de Wit, G Ardine</au><au>Cameron, D. William</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-11-03</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e111805</spage><epage>e111805</epage><pages>e111805-e111805</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>to determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs. 781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a questionnaire containing nine choice tasks with an opt-out option and nice forced choice tasks. Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five lifestyle program related attributes that were included. Willingness to pay (WTP) values were calculated and it was tested whether results differed between respondents who answered the choice tasks with an opt-out option in the first or second part of the questionnaire. 21.4% of the respondents always opted out. Respondents who were given the opt-out option in the first part of the questionnaire as well as lower educated respondents significantly more often opted out. For both the forced and unforced choice model, different attributes showed significant estimates, the relative importance of the attributes was equal. However, due to differences in relative importance weights, the WTP values for the PA schedule differed significantly between both datasets. Results show differences in opting out based on the location of the opt-out option and respondents' educational level; this resulted in small differences between the forced and unforced choice model. Since respondents seem to learn from answering forced choice tasks, a dual response design might result in higher data quality compared to offering a direct opt-out option. Future research should empirically explore how choice sets should be presented to make them as easy and less complex as possible in order to reduce the proportion of respondents that opts-out due to choice task complexity. Moreover, future research should debrief respondents to examine the reasons for choosing the opt-out alternative.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>25365169</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0111805</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2014-11, Vol.9 (11), p.e111805-e111805
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_1619502611
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adult
Aged
Analysis
Choice Behavior
Colorectal cancer
Datasets
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - psychology
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - therapy
Economic models
Efficiency
Engineering and Technology
Estimates
Experiments
Female
Health sciences
Health services
Health surveys
Humans
Logit models
Male
Medical research
Medical screening
Medicine and Health Sciences
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Nutrition
Primary care
Public health
Questionnaires
Research and Analysis Methods
Social Sciences
Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Task complexity
Type 2 diabetes
title The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T00%3A58%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20including%20an%20opt-out%20option%20in%20discrete%20choice%20experiments&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Veldwijk,%20Jorien&rft.date=2014-11-03&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e111805&rft.epage=e111805&rft.pages=e111805-e111805&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111805&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA416969068%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1619502611&rft_id=info:pmid/25365169&rft_galeid=A416969068&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_961c75a54a4341cdbb9c56a594b8096b&rfr_iscdi=true