Current replication
Spearman rank correlation
Not measuredNo current measurement is available in this registry.
Research study · 2016
Eliciting Preferences for Health Insurance in Iran Using Discrete Choice Experiment Analysis
Explore the published experiment and its available replication evidence.
Read the paper ↗01 / Human finding
What the study found
A reviewed summary is not available in this registry. Consult the published paper for the original finding.
Answer-key review: Not reviewed
02 / Experiment design
Who chose, and what varied
- Country
- Iran
- Human respondents
- Not recorded
- Attributes
- 8
- Task
- discrete choice
03 / Synthetic replication
Registry replication results
Paper-era reference
2023 CLM mean Spearman ρ
Not measuredHistorical results use their original estimator and reference. They are not a matched comparison with the current run.
Detailed replication evidence · 2026-10-31
Right direction on 10 of 13 effects, partial ranking (ρ = 0.75); sizes not comparable (the paper reports logit coefficients).
Use it to screen which attributes move choice; sizes need the paper's respondent data, and confirm the 3 reversed effects with people.
- direction
- mixed
- rank
- mixed
- size
- not comparable
Supported uses
- Nothing yet without human confirmation.
Limits to keep in view
- Ranking close levels against each other; the order diverges from humans.
- Decisions that hinge on the attributes whose direction flipped (listed below).
- Effect sizes in the paper's units; only direction, rank and shape are compared.
Effects on a common scale
Human effects: logit coefficient. Synthetic effects are multiplied by the record’s calibration factor, k = 5.4979. Calibration aligns magnitude; it does not establish agreement in unadjusted effect sizes.
| Attribute / level | Human | Human 95% half-width | Calibrated synthetic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public hospitals benefits: 60% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Public hospitals benefits: 90% | 0.705 | Not measured | 0.631 |
| Private hospitals benefits: 50% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Private hospitals benefits: 70% | 0.585 | Not measured | 0.610 |
| Private hospitals benefits: 90% | 1.040 | Not measured | 0.718 |
| Outpatient benefits: 50% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Outpatient benefits: 70% | 0.270 | Not measured | 0.557 |
| Outpatient benefits: 90% | 0.561 | Not measured | 1.042 |
| Dental care coverage benefits: 40% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Dental care coverage benefits: 70% | 0.451 | Not measured | 0.206 |
| Rehabilitation and para-clinical benefits: 50% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Rehabilitation and para-clinical benefits: 70% | -0.047 | Not measured | 0.316 |
| Rehabilitation and para-clinical benefits: 90% | 0.484 | Not measured | 0.388 |
| Long-term care benefits: 50% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Long-term care benefits: 70% | 0.259 | Not measured | 0.501 |
| Long-term care benefits: 90% | 0.356 | Not measured | 0.598 |
| Medical devices benefits: 60% (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Medical devices benefits: 90% | 0.209 | Not measured | 0.269 |
| Premium: 250 000 Rials (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Premium: 350 000 Rials | -0.360 | Not measured | 0.123 |
| Premium: 450 000 Rials | -0.720 | Not measured | 0.089 |
Subgroups · screen, not a result
Split by gender: 1 of 1 significant differences keep their direction in the simulation (21% to 100%)
screen, not a result. Each row is the female group’s effect minus the male group’s, human in logit, simulated on the simulation’s own scale, so compare direction, not size. A Jev fast-small screen makes no comparison claim.
- Sign agreement
- 1/1, 100%
- 95% interval
- 21% to 100%
- Shuffle null
- 48%, p 0.15
- Shape ρ
- 0.35, null p 0.18
- Scale ratio
- 1.05×
| Group | Simulated n | People n | ρ vs paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| female | 90 | not given | 0.50 |
| male | 85 | not given | 0.73 |
| Attribute / level | People Δ (95%) | Significant | Simulated Δ (own scale) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public hospitals benefits: 90% | -0.21 ±0.14 | yes | -0.03 ±0.08 | same direction |
| Private hospitals benefits: 70% | +0.09 ±0.21 | no | +0.08 ±0.09 | not compared |
| Private hospitals benefits: 90% | +0.20 ±0.22 | no | +0.03 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Outpatient benefits: 70% | -0.08 ±0.20 | no | +0.04 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Outpatient benefits: 90% | -0.01 ±0.21 | no | +0.05 ±0.09 | not compared |
| Dental care coverage benefits: 70% | +0.09 ±0.31 | no | +0.03 ±0.09 | not compared |
| Rehabilitation and para-clinical benefits: 70% | -0.19 ±0.27 | no | +0.03 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Rehabilitation and para-clinical benefits: 90% | -0.01 ±0.24 | no | -0.03 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Long-term care benefits: 70% | +0.03 ±0.30 | no | +0.05 ±0.11 | not compared |
| Long-term care benefits: 90% | -0.03 ±0.30 | no | +0.01 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Medical devices benefits: 90% | +0.10 ±0.20 | no | +0.05 ±0.08 | not compared |
04 / Evidence and limitations
Follow the evidence
Missing results mean unmeasured, not zero agreement.
- missing parent paper url
- missing canonical pdf
- missing historic score
- missing resolved wandb run