246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24124986)
1. Integrating cognitive process and descriptive models of attitudes and preferences.
Hawkins GE; Marley AA; Heathcote A; Flynn TN; Louviere JJ; Brown SD
Cogn Sci; 2014; 38(4):701-35. PubMed ID: 24124986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of branding on preference-based decision making.
Philiastides MG; Ratcliff R
Psychol Sci; 2013 Jul; 24(7):1208-15. PubMed ID: 23696199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation.
Brown SD; Heathcote A
Cogn Psychol; 2008 Nov; 57(3):153-78. PubMed ID: 18243170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models.
Berkowitsch NA; Scheibehenne B; Rieskamp J
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Jun; 143(3):1331-48. PubMed ID: 24364681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multi-attribute, multi-alternative models of choice: Choice, reaction time, and process tracing.
Cohen AL; Kang N; Leise TL
Cogn Psychol; 2017 Nov; 98():45-72. PubMed ID: 28843070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Decision processes and the slowing of simple choices in schizophrenia.
Heathcote A; Suraev A; Curley S; Gong Q; Love J; Michie PT
J Abnorm Psychol; 2015 Nov; 124(4):961-974. PubMed ID: 26595475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data.
Potoglou D; Burge P; Flynn T; Netten A; Malley J; Forder J; Brazier JE
Soc Sci Med; 2011 May; 72(10):1717-27. PubMed ID: 21530040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dynamic cognitive models of intertemporal choice.
Dai J; Pleskac TJ; Pachur T
Cogn Psychol; 2018 Aug; 104():29-56. PubMed ID: 29587183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models for response time with different conclusions about psychological mechanisms?
Heathcote A; Hayes B
Can J Exp Psychol; 2012 Jun; 66(2):125-36. PubMed ID: 22686161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two-stage dynamic signal detection: a theory of choice, decision time, and confidence.
Pleskac TJ; Busemeyer JR
Psychol Rev; 2010 Jul; 117(3):864-901. PubMed ID: 20658856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis.
Flynn TN; Louviere JJ; Peters TJ; Coast J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Nov; 8():76. PubMed ID: 19017376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best-worst discrete choice experiments in health.
Krucien N; Sicsic J; Ryan M
Health Econ; 2019 Apr; 28(4):572-586. PubMed ID: 30761661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Decision-tree models of categorization response times, choice proportions, and typicality judgments.
Lafond D; Lacouture Y; Cohen AL
Psychol Rev; 2009 Oct; 116(4):833-55. PubMed ID: 19839685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments.
Yoo HI; Doiron D
J Health Econ; 2013 Dec; 32(6):1166-79. PubMed ID: 24144729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application.
Lancsar E; Louviere J; Donaldson C; Currie G; Burgess L
Soc Sci Med; 2013 Jan; 76(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 23159304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A dynamic context model of interactive behavior.
Fu WT
Cogn Sci; 2011 Jul; 35(5):874-904. PubMed ID: 21736603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Patient preferences for depression treatment programs and willingness to pay for treatment.
Morey E; Thacher JA; Craighead WE
J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2007 Jun; 10(2):73-85. PubMed ID: 17603148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dynamic models of choice.
Heathcote A; Lin YS; Reynolds A; Strickland L; Gretton M; Matzke D
Behav Res Methods; 2019 Apr; 51(2):961-985. PubMed ID: 29959755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Getting more from accuracy and response time data: methods for fitting the linear ballistic accumulator.
Donkin C; Averell L; Brown S; Heathcote A
Behav Res Methods; 2009 Nov; 41(4):1095-110. PubMed ID: 19897817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A generalized distance function for preferential choices.
Berkowitsch NA; Scheibehenne B; Rieskamp J; Matthäus M
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2015 May; 68(2):310-25. PubMed ID: 25677976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
