IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecnmx/v12y2024i3p22-d1452419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?

Author

Listed:
  • Péter Czine

    (Coordination Center for Research in Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Péter Balogh

    (Institute of Methodology and Business Digitalization, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
    HUN-REN-DE High-Tech Technologies for Sustainable Management Research Group, University of Debrecen, Boszormenyi Street 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Zsanett Blága

    (University Pharmacy, Clinical Centre, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
    Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Zoltán Szabó

    (Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Réka Szekeres

    (Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

  • Stephane Hess

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Béla Juhász

    (Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary)

Abstract

Heterogeneity in preferences can be addressed through various discrete choice modeling approaches. The random-parameter latent class (RLC) approach offers a desirable alternative for analysts due to its advantageous properties of separating classes with different preferences and capturing the remaining heterogeneity within classes by including random parameters. For latent class specifications, however, more empirical evidence on the optimal number of classes to consider is needed in order to develop a more objective set of criteria. To investigate this question, we tested cases with different class numbers (for both fixed- and random-parameter latent class modeling) by analyzing data from a discrete choice experiment conducted in 2021 (examined preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccines). We compared models using commonly used indicators such as the Bayesian information criterion, and we took into account, among others, a seemingly simple but often overlooked indicator such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates. Based on our results, it is not sufficient to decide on the optimal number of classes in the latent class modeling based on only information criteria. We considered aspects such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates (it may be interesting to examine this both between and within specifications to find out which model type and class number has the most balanced ratio); the validity of the coefficients obtained (focusing on whether the conclusions are consistent with our theoretical model); whether including random parameters is justified (finding a balance between the complexity of the model and its information content, i.e., to examine when (and to what extent) the introduction of within-class heterogeneity is relevant); and the distributions of MRS calculations (since they often function as a direct measure of preferences, it is necessary to test how consistent the distributions of specifications with different class numbers are (if they are highly, i.e., relatively stable in explaining consumer preferences, it is probably worth putting more emphasis on the aspects mentioned above when choosing a model)). The results of this research raise further questions that should be addressed by further model testing in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Péter Czine & Péter Balogh & Zsanett Blága & Zoltán Szabó & Réka Szekeres & Stephane Hess & Béla Juhász, 2024. "Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecnmx:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:22-:d:1452419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/12/3/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/12/3/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    3. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    2. Zhiwei Liu & Jianrong Liu, 2023. "Shared Autonomous Vehicles as Last-Mile Public Transport of Metro Trips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Xiong, Yingge & Tobias, Justin L. & Mannering, Fred L., 2014. "The analysis of vehicle crash injury-severity data: A Markov switching approach with road-segment heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 109-128.
    4. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    5. María Feo-Valero & Leandro García-Menéndez & Salvador del Saz-Salazar, 2016. "Rail freight transport and demand requirements: an analysis of attribute cut-offs through a stated preference experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 101-122, January.
    6. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    8. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Youssef M Aboutaleb & Mazen Danaf & Yifei Xie & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2020. "Sparse Covariance Estimation in Logit Mixture Models," Papers 2001.05034, arXiv.org.
    10. Laurent Ott & Mehdi Farsi & Sylvain Weber, 2021. "Beyond political divides: analyzing public opinion on carbon taxation in Switzerland," Chapters, in: Axel Franzen & Sebastian Mader (ed.), Research Handbook on Environmental Sociology, chapter 17, pages 313-339, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    12. Gutiérrez-Vargas, Álvaro A. & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2023. "Modeling preference heterogeneity using model-based decision trees," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    14. Fangqing Song & Stephane Hess & Thijs Dekker, 2024. "Uncovering the link between intra-individual heterogeneity and variety seeking: the case of new shared mobility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 371-406, April.
    15. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    16. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "A Dirichlet Process Mixture Model of Discrete Choice," Papers 1801.06296, arXiv.org.
    18. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.
    19. Jia, Wenjian & Chen, T. Donna, 2023. "Investigating heterogeneous preferences for plug-in electric vehicles: Policy implications from different choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Sfeir, Georges & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Rodrigues, Filipe & Pereira, Francisco Camara & Kaysi, Isam, 2021. "Latent class choice model with a flexible class membership component: A mixture model approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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:gam:jecnmx:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:22-:d:1452419. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.