IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping leisure shopping trip decision making: validation of the CNET interview protocol


  • Tim De Ceunynck


  • Diana Kusumastuti


  • Els Hannes


  • Davy Janssens


  • Geert Wets



Qualitative research methods can provide an in-depth understanding of how people come to certain decisions, providing valuable input to ground behavioural assumptions in activity-based travel demand models and to implement high impact policy measures to change travel behaviour. The CNET interview protocol is a semi-structured personal interview method to elicit the mental representation of individuals’ decision making. There is a risk of bias caused by the interviewer’s interpretation of the respondents’ answers. Therefore, the quality of the CNET interview protocol is assessed by evaluating its trustworthiness using intercoder reliability tests. Krippendorff’s alpha is identified as the most appropriate measure. The intercoder reliability is sufficiently high. Consequently, the CNET interview protocol can be considered a valid method to measure and map individuals’ considerations in complex spatio-temporal decision problems. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Tim De Ceunynck & Diana Kusumastuti & Els Hannes & Davy Janssens & Geert Wets, 2013. "Mapping leisure shopping trip decision making: validation of the CNET interview protocol," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1831-1849, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:1831-1849
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9629-4

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:1831-1849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.