IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03719022.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Delle Site

    (UNICUSANO - University Niccolò Cusano = Università Niccoló Cusano)

  • Karim Kilani

    (LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] - HESAM - HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université)

  • Valerio Gatta

    (ROMA TRE - Università degli Studi Roma Tre = Roma Tre University)

  • Edoardo Marcucci

    (ROMA TRE - Università degli Studi Roma Tre = Roma Tre University)

  • André de Palma

    (ENS Paris Saclay - Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay)

Abstract

The paper considers random utility models that use a single common vector of random utilities for the computation of best, worst and best–worst choice probabilities, i.e. consistent models. Choice probabilities are derived for two distributions of the random terms: i.i.d. extreme value, i.e. Logit, and multivariate normal, i.e. Probit. We prove strict log-concavity of the likelihood, with respect to the coefficients of the systematic utilities, for best, worst and best–worst choice probabilities in Logit, and for best and worst choice probabilities in Probit, under a mild necessary and sufficient condition of absence of perfect multicollinearity in the matrix of alternative and individual characteristics. This condition parallels that in ordinary least squares linear regression models. The hypothesis of equality of the utility coefficients of best choice models and of worst choice models is tested with data on mode choice, collected for the assessment of user responses to urban congestion charging policies. The numerical results show, in both Logit and Probit, statistically significant differences between utility coefficients of best and worst models. The estimations based on worst choice data exhibit coefficient attenuation and higher mean values of travel time savings with larger standard errors.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Delle Site & Karim Kilani & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & André de Palma, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Post-Print hal-03719022, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03719022
    DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2019.07.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & Scaccia, Luisa, 2015. "On finite sample performance of confidence intervals methods for willingness to pay measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 169-192.
    3. Alberto Cambini & Laura Martein, 2009. "Generalized Convexity and Optimization," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-70876-6, December.
    4. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    5. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2014. "The seeming unreliability of rank-ordered data as a consequence of model misspecification," MPRA Paper 56285, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. van Ophem, Hans & Stam, Piet & Van Praag, Bernard M S, 1999. "Multichoice Logit: Modeling Incomplete Preference Rankings of Classical Concerts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(1), pages 117-128, January.
    7. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre, 1999. "Reverse discrete choice models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 745-764, November.
    8. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    10. McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul A, 1994. "Estimation by Simulation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 591-608, November.
    11. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2015. "Ordered choice probabilities in random utility models," Working Papers hal-01130603, HAL.
    12. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    13. Tatiana Dyachenko & Rebecca Walker Reczek & Greg M. Allenby, 2014. "Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 828-848, November.
    14. Matthew J. Beck & John M. Rose & Stephen P. Greaves, 2017. "I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes and electric vehicle choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 753-772, July.
    15. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arkadiusz Kuświk & Łukasz Mach & Łukasz Mikołajczyk & Marian Drymluch, 2021. "The influence of characteristics of estate developer’s apartments on the chance of selling them," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 52(2), pages 167-190.
    2. Mingyue Li & Pujie Zhao & Lianbei Wu & Kai Chen, 2021. "Effects of Value Perception, Environmental Regulation and Their Interaction on the Improvement of Herdsmen’s Grassland Ecological Policy Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Luis A. Guzman & Victor A. Cantillo-Garcia & Julian Arellana & Olga L. Sarmiento, 2023. "User expectations and perceptions towards new public transport infrastructure: evaluating a cable car in Bogotá," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 751-771, June.
    4. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2022. "Best, worst, and Best&worst choice probabilities for logit and reverse logit models," Working Papers hal-03913928, HAL.
    5. Eleni Aristodemou, 2022. "Strictly log-concave probability distributions in discrete response models," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 06-2022, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    6. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    7. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2023. "Best, worst, and Best&worst choice probabilities for logit and reverse logit models," THEMA Working Papers 2023-06, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    8. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2023. "Best, worst, and best&worst choice probabilities for logit and reverse logit models," THEMA Working Papers 2023-16, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    9. Antonio Comi & Antonio Polimeni, 2020. "Assessing the Potential of Short Sea Shipping and the Benefits in Terms of External Costs: Application to the Mediterranean Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Aristodemou, Eleni, 2023. "Strictly log-concave probability distributions in discrete response models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paolo Delle Site & Karim Kilani & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & André de Palma, 2018. "Estimation of Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best-worst choices," Working Papers hal-01953581, HAL.
    2. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    3. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    4. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    5. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    6. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Touza, Julia & Pérez-Alonso, Alicia & Chas-Amil, María L. & Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina, 2014. "Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 330-341.
    8. Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A spatial rank-ordered probit model with an application to travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 374-393.
    9. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    10. Christian Wankmüller & Maximilian Kunovjanek & Robert Gennaro Sposato & Gerald Reiner, 2020. "Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Barbour, Natalia & Menon, Nikhil & Zhang, Yu & Mannering, Fred, 2019. "Shared automated vehicles: A statistical analysis of consumer use likelihoods and concerns," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 86-93.
    12. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation," Handbook of Econometrics, in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 40, pages 2383-2441, Elsevier.
    13. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    15. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    16. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    17. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    18. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    19. Dumortier, Jerome & Siddiki, Saba & Carley, Sanya & Cisney, Joshua & Krause, Rachel & Lane, Bradley & Rupp, John & Graham, John, 2015. "Effects of Life Cycle Cost Information Disclosure on the Purchase Decision of Hybrid and Plug-In Vehicles," IU SPEA AgEcon Papers 198643, Indiana University, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
    20. Danielis, Romeo & Scorrano, Mariangela & Giansoldati, Marco & Rotaris, Lucia, 2019. "A meta-analysis of the importance of the driving range in consumers’ preference studies for battery electric vehicles," Working Papers 19_2, SIET Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica.

    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:hal:journl:hal-03719022. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.