IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v83y2001i2p441-454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Thomas P. Holmes
  • Mario F. Teisl
  • Brian Roe

Abstract

A split-sample design is used to evaluate the convergent validity of three response formats used in conjoint analysis experiments. We investigate whether recoding rating data to rankings and choose-one formats, and recoding ranking data to choose one, result in structural models and welfare estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from estimates based on ranking or choose-one questions. Our results indicate that convergent validity of ratings, ranks, and choose one is not established. In addition, we find that people frequently use ‘ties’ in responses to rating questions, and that the option not to choose any of the alternatives (‘opt-out’) affects some preference estimates. Copyright 2001, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:83:y:2001:i:2:p:441-454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/0002-9092.00168
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:83:y:2001:i:2:p:441-454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.