Measuring what people value: A comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys
Measuring what people value: A comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1475-6773.01116
复制
发表时间：
2002-12-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Maddala, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Phillips, KA;Johnson, FR;Maddala, T
Objective.比较和对比同一调查中使用的两种评估方法的方法和结果：使用简单排名和评级测量“态度”与使用联合分析测量“偏好”。联合分析是一种陈述偏好方法，涉及通过排名、评级或选择场景来比较由属性描述组成的场景。我们探索可能的解释，我们的研究结果使用焦点小组进行定量调查后。1999-2000年，在旧金山弗朗西斯科的艾滋病毒检测点进行了一项自我管理的调查，测量对艾滋病毒检测的态度和偏好（n = 365，应答率= 96%）。使用标准方法测量和分析态度。联合分析方案采用部分析因设计，结果采用随机效应概率单位模型进行分析。我们研究了使用这两种方法的结果是如何相似和不同的。我们发现，“态度”和“偏好”基本一致，但也有一些重要的差异。虽然排名是基于。的态度和联合分析调查是相似的，更仔细的检查显示，重要的差异，受访者如何重视价格和属性的“光环”效应，属性水平的变化如何重视，并在决策过程中的明显差异。据我们所知，这是第一个研究比较态度调查和联合分析调查，并探讨使用事后焦点小组的结果的意义。虽然对态度和偏好的总体研究结果相似，但这两种方法得出了一些不同的结论。健康研究人员在确定如何衡量人们的价值时，应该考虑这两种方法的优点和局限性。
Objective. To compare and contrast methods and findings from two approaches to valuation used in the same survey: measurement of "attitudes" using simple rankings and ratings versus measurement of "preferences" using conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis, a stated preference method, involves comparing scenarios composed of attribute descriptions by ranking, rating, or choosing scenarios. We explore possible explanations for our findings using focus groups conducted after the quantitative survey.Methods. A self-administered survey, measuring attitudes and preferences for HIV tests, was conducted at HIV testing sites in San Francisco in 1999-2000 (n = 365, response rate = 96 percent). Attitudes were measured and analyzed using standard approaches. Conjoint analysis scenarios were developed using a fractional factorial design and results analyzed using random effects probit models. We examined how the results using the two approaches were both similar and different.Results. We found that "attitudes" and "preferences" were generally consistent, but there were some important differences. Although rankings based. on the attitude and conjoint analysis surveys were similar, closer examination revealed important differences in how respondents valued price and attributes with "halo" effects, variation in how attribute levels were valued, and apparent differences in decision-making processes.Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare attitude surveys and conjoint analysis surveys and to explore the meaning of the results using post-hoc focus groups. Although the overall findings for attitudes and preferences were similar, the two approaches resulted in some different conclusions. Health researchers should consider the advantages and limitations of both methods when determining how to measure what people value.