IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v59y2015i3p375-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A within-sample investigation of test–retest reliability in choice experiment surveys with real economic incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Morten Raun Mørkbak
  • Søren Bøye Olsen

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="ajar12067-abs-0001"> In this paper, we investigate the level of agreement between respondents' choices in identical choice sets in a test–retest choice experiment for a market good with real economic incentives, thus investigating whether the incentivised CE method can be reliable and stable over time. Besides comparing choices, we also test for differences in preferences and error variance when a sample of respondents is given the exact same questionnaire twice, with a time lag of 2 weeks in between. Finally, we examine potential reasons and covariates explaining the level of agreement in choices across the 2 weeks. Across four different tests, we find very good agreement between the two choice experiments – both with respect to overall choices and with respect to preferences. Furthermore, error variances do not differ significantly between the two surveys. The results also show that the larger the utility difference in a choice task, the larger the probability that the respondent will choose the same alternative in the retest. Moreover, the results show that the longer time respondents take to answer the 12 choice sets in the retest, the lower the probability that the respondent will choose the same alternatives in the retest as they did in the test.

Suggested Citation

  • Morten Raun Mørkbak & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2015. "A within-sample investigation of test–retest reliability in choice experiment surveys with real economic incentives," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(3), pages 375-392, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:59:y:2015:i:3:p:375-392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ajar.2015.59.issue-3
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.

    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:bla:ajarec:v:59:y:2015:i:3:p:375-392. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.