IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61483.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discrete choice models, which one performs better?

Author

Listed:
  • Gallardo, Rosa Karina
  • Chang, Jae Bong

Abstract

For over the last thirty years the multinomial logit model has been the standard in choice modeling. Development in econometrics and computational algorithms has led to the increasing tendency to opt for more flexible models able to depict more realistically choice behavior. This study compares three discrete choice models, the standard multinomial logit, the error components logit, and the random parameters logit. Data were obtained from two choice experiments conducted to investigate consumers’ preferences for fresh pears receiving several postharvest treatments. Model comparisons consisted of in-sample and holdout sample evaluations. Results show that product characteristics hence, datasets, influence model performance. We also found that the multinomial logit model outperformed in at least one of three evaluations in both datasets. Overall, findings signal the need for further studies controlling for context and dataset to have more conclusive cues for discrete choice models capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Chang, Jae Bong, 2010. "Discrete choice models, which one performs better?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61483, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61483
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61483/files/AAEA10_GallardoChang.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61483?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:aaea10:61483. 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: AgEcon Search (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.