Design with scenarios - interaction terms
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:32 am
Hello, I am trying to create a design for a health based DCE. I plan to have two scenarios (different symptom types) that will vary across choice tasks but remain the same for the alternatives within a given choice task.
I would like to be able to estimate the impact of the scenarios on the attributes within the model so as I understand this would involve using interaction terms. I have consulted sections 7.2 (interaction terms) and 8.5 (scenarios) and attempted to do this with the code below but I am getting an error ("Error: The level '1' specified in dummy or effects coded variable is not one of the levels of that attribute 'alt2.scenario'."). Are you able to offer any insights on where I am going wrong?
I am also wondering, given the categorical coding (and need for many interaction terms) and the fact I only have two scenarios. Is there a benefit to using this approach over collecting the data as two separate studies (i.e. different but matched samples) and comparing data based on ratios or with scale adjustment? I have posed this question to a few colleagues but it seems no there is no consensus.
Thank you for any advice you can offer.
Rebekah
I would like to be able to estimate the impact of the scenarios on the attributes within the model so as I understand this would involve using interaction terms. I have consulted sections 7.2 (interaction terms) and 8.5 (scenarios) and attempted to do this with the code below but I am getting an error ("Error: The level '1' specified in dummy or effects coded variable is not one of the levels of that attribute 'alt2.scenario'."). Are you able to offer any insights on where I am going wrong?
- Code: Select all
Design
; alts = alt1*, alt2*, alt3
; rows =12
; eff = (mnl,d)
; cond:
if (alt1.A = 0, alt1.B=0),
if (alt1.A = 0, alt1.C=0),
if (alt2.A = 0, alt2.B=0),
if (alt2.A = 0, alt2.C=0)
; model:
U( alt1 ) = b1.dummy [-0.0001|-0.0002] * A[1,2,0]
+ b2.dummy[0.0001|0.0002] * B[1,2,0]
+ b3.dummy[-0.0001|-0.0002] * C[1,2,0]
+ b4.dummy[-0.0001|-0.0002] * D[1,2,0]
+ b5[0.0001] *SCENARIO[1,2]
+i1[0.001] *A.dummy[1] * SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i2[0.001] *A.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i3[-0.001] *B.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i4[-0.001] *B.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i5[0.001] *C.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i6[0.001] *C.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i7[0.001] *D.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i8[0.001] *D.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
/
U( alt2 ) = b1 * A
+ b2 * B
+ b3 * C
+ b4 * D
+ b5 * SCENARIO[SCENARIO]
+i1 *A.dummy[1] * SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i2 *A.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i3 *B.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i4 *B.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i5 *C.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i6 *C.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i7 *D.dummy[1]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
+i8 *D.dummy[2]*SCENARIO.dummy[1]
/
U(alt3) = b6[-0.0003]
$
I am also wondering, given the categorical coding (and need for many interaction terms) and the fact I only have two scenarios. Is there a benefit to using this approach over collecting the data as two separate studies (i.e. different but matched samples) and comparing data based on ratios or with scale adjustment? I have posed this question to a few colleagues but it seems no there is no consensus.
Thank you for any advice you can offer.
Rebekah