The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review

被引:9
|
作者
Schuster, Anne L. R. [1 ]
Crossnohere, Norah L. [2 ]
Campoamor, Nicola B. [1 ]
Hollin, Ilene L. [3 ]
Bridges, John F. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, Coll Med, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Coll Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Columbus, OH USA
[3] Temple Univ, Dept Hlth Serv Adm & Policy, Coll Publ Hlth, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
Best-worst scaling; Choice experiments; Preference methods; Survey design; Transdisciplinary; DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS; PATIENT PREFERENCES; CAREGIVER PREFERENCES; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; MALE CIRCUMCISION; HPV VACCINATION; HEALTH; DEMAND; MOTIVATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100466
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a theory-driven choice experiment used for the prioritization of a finite number of options. Within the context of prioritization, BWS is also known as MaxDiff, BWS object case, and BWS Case 1. Now used in numerous fields, we conducted a transdisciplinary literature review of all published applications of BWS focused on prioritization to compare norms on the development, design, administration, analysis, and quality of BWS applications across fields. We identified 526 publications published before 2023 in the fields of health (n = 195), agriculture (n = 163), environment (n = 50), business (n = 50), linguistics (n = 24), transportation (n = 24), and other fields (n = 24). The application of BWS has been doubling every four years. BWS is applied globally with greatest frequency in North America (27.0%). Most studies had a clearly stated purpose (94.7%) that was empirical in nature (89.9%) with choices elicited in the present tense (90.9%). Apart from linguistics, most studies: applied at least one instrument development method (94.3%), used BWS to assess importance (63.1%), used 'most/ least' anchors (85.7%), and conducted heterogeneity analysis (69.0%). Studies predominantly administered surveys online (58.0%) and infrequently included formal sample size calculations (2.9%). BWS designs in linguistics differed significantly from other fields regarding the average number of objects (p < 0.01), average number of tasks (p < 0.01), average number of objects per task (p = 0.03), and average number of tasks presented to participants (p < 0.01). On a 5-point scale, the average PREFS score was 3.0. This review reveals the growing application of BWS for prioritization and promises to foster new transdisciplinary avenues of inquiry.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review
    Hollin, Ilene L.
    Paskett, Jonathan
    Schuster, Anne L. R.
    Crossnohere, Norah L.
    Bridges, John F. P.
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2022, 40 (09) : 883 - 899
  • [2] Express analysis for prioritization: Best-Worst Scaling alteration to System 1
    Lipovetsky, Stan
    JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT ANALYTICS, 2020, 7 (01) : 12 - 27
  • [3] Using best-worst scaling to inform policy decisions in Africa: a literature review
    Beres, Laura K.
    Campoamor, Nicola B.
    Hawthorn, Rachael
    Mugambi, Melissa L.
    Mulabe, Musunge
    Vhlakis, Natlie
    Kabongo, Michael
    Schuster, Anne
    Bridges, John F. P.
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [4] Best-Worst Scaling with many items
    Chrzan, Keith
    Peitz, Megan
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2019, 30 : 61 - 72
  • [5] Best–Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review
    Ilene L. Hollin
    Jonathan Paskett
    Anne L. R. Schuster
    Norah L. Crossnohere
    John F. P. Bridges
    PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40 : 883 - 899
  • [6] Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing
    Cohen, Eli
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WINE BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2009, 21 (01) : 8 - +
  • [7] When is best-worst best? A comparison of best-worst scaling, numeric estimation, and rating scales for collection of semantic norms
    Hollis, Geoff
    Westbury, Chris
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2018, 50 (01) : 115 - 133
  • [8] When is best-worst best? A comparison of best-worst scaling, numeric estimation, and rating scales for collection of semantic norms
    Geoff Hollis
    Chris Westbury
    Behavior Research Methods, 2018, 50 : 115 - 133
  • [9] PARENTS' VIEWS ON THE BEST AND WORST REASONS FOR HPV VACCINATION: A BEST-WORST SCALING STUDY
    Gilkey, Melissa B.
    Zhou, Mo
    McRee, Annie-Laurie
    Kornides, Melanie
    Bridges, John
    ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2018, 52 : S450 - S450
  • [10] Servicing in Sponsorship: A Best-Worst Scaling Empirical Analysis
    O'Reilly, Norm
    Huybers, Twan
    JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT, 2015, 29 (02) : 155 - 169