Latent Class Models Reveal Poor Agreement between Discrete-Choice and Time Tradeoff Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background.</b> In health economics, there has been interest in using discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) to derive preferences for health states in lieu of previously established approaches like time tradeoff (TTO). We examined whether preferences elicited through DCEs are associated and agree with preferences elicited through TTO tasks. <b>Methods.</b> We used data from 1073 respondents to the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Multivariate mixed-effects models specified a common likelihood for the TTO and discrete-choice data, with separate but correlated random effects for the TTO and DCE data, for each of the 5 EQ-5D-5L dimensions. Multivariate latent class models allowed separate but associated latent classes for the DCE and TTO data. <b>Results.</b> Correlation between the random effects for the 2 tasks ranged from −0.12 to 0.75, with only pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression having at least a 50% posterior probability of strong (>0.6) correlation. Latent classes for the TTO and DCE data both featured 1 latent class capturing participants attaching large disutilities to pain/discomfort, another capturing participants attaching large disutility to anxiety/depression, and the third class capturing the remainder. Agreement in class membership was poor (κ coefficient: 0.081; 95% credible interval, 0.033–0.13). Fewer respondents expressed strong disutilities for problems with anxiety/depression or pain/discomfort in the TTO than the DCE data (17% v. 55%, respectively). <b>Conclusions.</b> Stated preferences using TTO and DCEs show association across dimensions but poor agreement at the level of individual health states within respondents. Joint models that assume agreement between DCE and TTO have been used to develop national value sets for the EQ-5D-5L. This work indicates that when combining data from both techniques, methods requiring association but not agreement are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".