4.1 Review

Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability?

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1389648

Keywords

Benefit-risk assessment; discrete-choice experiment; patient preferences; reliability; stated-preference methods; validity

Funding

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Award [ME-1303-5946]
  2. Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) [1U01FD004977-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The recent endorsement of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) and other stated-preference methods by regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies has placed a greater focus on demonstrating the validity and reliability of preference results.Areas covered: We present a practical overview of tests of validity and reliability that have been applied in the health DCE literature and explore other study qualities of DCEs. From the published literature, we identify a variety of methods to assess the validity and reliability of DCEs. We conceptualize these methods to create a conceptual model with four domains: measurement validity, measurement reliability, choice validity, and choice reliability. Each domain consists of three categories that can be assessed using one to four procedures (for a total of 24 tests). We present how these tests have been applied in the literature and direct readers to applications of these tests in the health DCE literature. Based on a stakeholder engagement exercise, we consider the importance of study characteristics beyond traditional concepts of validity and reliability.Expert commentary: We discuss study design considerations to assess the validity and reliability of a DCE, consider limitations to the current application of tests, and discuss future work to consider the quality of DCEs in healthcare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available