Feasibility of Using Modified Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Importance Questions

Liana Fraenkel ()

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2010, vol. 3, issue 4, 209-215

Abstract: Background: Prior practical experience in conducting adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) surveys has demonstrated that many subjects have difficulty understanding the ‘importance’ questions. Objective: To develop a modified version of ACA importance questions. Methods: Modified ACA importance questions composed of two tasks were developed and tested in a pilot study of patients with knee pain. In the first, respondents were presented with the list of attributes and asked to choose which they considered the most important. In the second, they were asked to rate the importance of the remaining attributes relative to the most important one on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Consecutive patients with knee pain, followed at a hospital-based Bone and Joint Clinic, were randomized to complete the original or modified version of the ACA survey. The two versions were identical except for the importance questions. The ACA survey included six attributes: pain, energy, route of administration, stomach upset, bleeding ulcer and cost. Each attribute contained three levels, all of which had a natural order except for route of administration. As this was a pilot study, we present descriptive statistics only. Results: A total of 49 patients were recruited; 24 completed the original version and 25 completed the modified version. Subjects felt that bar graphs illustrating the relative importance were more accurate for the modified version of ACA. The proportion of subjects for which the most important attribute chosen on a card-sorting task matched that generated by ACA was greater for the modified than for the original version (48% vs 29%). The proportion of subjects for which the treatment option chosen on a card-sorting task matched that predicted by ACA was also greater for the modified than for the original version (80% vs 75%). Subjects used a greater number of points to rate the importance of attributes on the modified version of ACA (mean±SD=3.4±0.9) than on the original version (mean± SD=2.7±1.0). Conclusions: The modified version of the ACA importance questions appears to perform as well as or better than the original version. Use of a simplified set of ACA importance questions is a reasonable alternative for investigators interested in using ACA as a decision-support tool in clinical practice. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11318820-000000000-00000 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:209-215

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.2165/11318820-000000000-00000

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().