Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats

Contents:

Author Info

  • 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.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its journal American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Volume (Year): 83 (2001)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 441-454

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:83:y:2001:i:2:p:441-454

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Email:
Web page: http://www.aaea.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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