IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v39y2021ics1755534521000221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

bwsTools: An R package for case 1 best-worst scaling

Author

Listed:
  • White, Mark H.

Abstract

Case 1 best-worst scaling, also known as best-worst scaling or MaxDiff, is a popular method for examining the relative ratings and ranks of a series of items in various disciplines in academia and industry. The method involves a survey respondent indicating the “best” and “worst” from a sample of items across a series of trials. Many methods exist for calculating scores at the individual and aggregate levels. I introduce the bwsTools package, a free and open-source set of tools for the R statistical programming language, to aid researchers and practitioners in the construction and analysis of best-worst scaling designs. This package is designed to work seamlessly with tidy data, does not require design matrices, and employs various published individual- and aggregate-level scoring methods that have yet to be employed in free software.

Suggested Citation

  • White, Mark H., 2021. "bwsTools: An R package for case 1 best-worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:39:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000221
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534521000221
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100289?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Makiko Nakano & Takahiro Tsuge, 2019. "Assessing the Heterogeneity of Consumers’ Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility Using the Best–Worst Scaling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney & Jordan Louviere, 2007. "Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs Across Countries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 299-326, February.
    3. Kei Long Cheung & Ben F. M. Wijnen & Ilene L. Hollin & Ellen M. Janssen & John F. Bridges & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2016. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1195-1209, December.
    4. Baback Vaziri & Shaunak Dabadghao & Yuehwern Yih & Thomas L. Morin, 2018. "Properties of sports ranking methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(5), pages 776-787, May.
    5. Raymond Stefani, 1997. "Survey of the major world sports rating systems," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 635-646.
    6. Louviere, Jordan & Lings, Ian & Islam, Towhidul & Gudergan, Siegfried & Flynn, Terry, 2013. "An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 292-303.
    7. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    8. Marley, A.A.J. & Islam, T. & Hawkins, G.E., 2016. "A formal and empirical comparison of two score measures for best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 15-24.
    9. Lipovetsky, Stan & Conklin, Michael, 2014. "Best-Worst Scaling in analytical closed-form solution," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 60-68.
    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. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2023. "R packages and tutorial for case 1 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    2. Viengkham, Doris & Baumann, Chris & Winzar, Hume & Dahana, Wirawan Dony, 2022. "Toward understanding Convergence and Divergence: Inter-ocular testing of traditional philosophies, economic orientation, and religiosity/spirituality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1335-1352.

    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. Jinhua Li & Fang Zhang & Shiwei Sun, 2019. "Building Consumer-Oriented CSR Differentiation Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Lipovetsky, Stan, 2018. "Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 62-73.
    4. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    5. Shehely Parvin & Paul Wang & Jashim Uddin, 2016. "Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers’ value preferences: A multidimensional perspective," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1199110-119, December.
    6. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    7. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Rose, John M., 2018. "Cost-reflective pricing: empirical insights into irrigators’ preferences for water tariffs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    8. Echaniz, Eneko & Ho, Chinh Q. & Rodriguez, Andres & dell'Olio, Luigi, 2019. "Comparing best-worst and ordered logit approaches for user satisfaction in transit services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 752-769.
    9. Chrzan, Keith & Peitz, Megan, 2019. "Best-Worst Scaling with many items," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 61-72.
    10. Alexandre Brouste & Christophe Dutang & Tom Rohmer, 2022. "A Closed-form Alternative Estimator for GLM with Categorical Explanatory Variables," Post-Print hal-03689206, HAL.
    11. Suprehatin, By & Umberger, Wendy J. & Yi, Dale & Stringer, Randy & Minot, Nicholas, 2015. "Can Understanding Indonesian Farmers’ Preferences for Crop Attributes Encourage their Adoption of High Value Crops?," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212057, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Glenk, Klaus & Eory, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: An analysis of dairy farmers' perceptions and adoption behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 49-58.
    13. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2023. "R packages and tutorial for case 1 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    14. Lipovetsky, Stan & Conklin, Michael, 2014. "Finding items cannibalization and synergy by BWS data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Amanda Working & Mohammed Alqawba & Norou Diawara, 2020. "Dynamic Attribute-Level Best Worst Discrete Choice Experiments," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(2), pages 1-1, March.
    16. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    17. Luger, Michaela & Hofer, Katharina Maria & Floh, Arne, 2022. "Support for corporate social responsibility among generation Y consumers in advanced versus emerging markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2).
    18. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2022. "Sports competitions and the Break-Even rule," Working Papers 22.13, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    19. Morgan, Carissa J. & Dominick, S.R. & Widmar, Nicole J. Olynk & Yeager, Elizabeth A. & Croney, Candace C., 2016. "Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility of Prominent Fast Food Establishments by University Students," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Roberto Sañudo & Eneko Echaniz & Borja Alonso & Rubén Cordera, 2019. "Addressing the Importance of Service Attributes in Railways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, June.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:39:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000221. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.