IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureir/8533.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities

Author

Listed:
  • van Dijk, A.
  • Fok, D.
  • Paap, R.

Abstract

In this paper we consider the situation where one wants to study the preferences of individuals over a discrete choice set through a survey. In the classical setup respondents are asked to select their most preferred option out of a (selected) set of alternatives. It is well known that, in theory, more information can be obtained if respondents are asked to rank the set of alternatives instead. In statistical terms, the preferences can then be estimated more efficiently. However, when individuals are unable to perform (part of) this ranking task, using the complete ranking may lead to a substantial bias in parameter estimates. In practice, one usually opts to only use a part of the reported ranking. In this paper we introduce a latent-class rank-ordered logit model in which we use latent segments to endogenously identify the ranking capabilities of individuals. Each segment corresponds to a different assumption on the ranking capability. Using simulations and an empirical application, we show that using this model for parameter estimation results in a clear efficiency gain over a multinomial logit model in case some individuals are able to rank. At the same time it does not suffer from biases due to ranking inabilities of some of the respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • van Dijk, A. & Fok, D. & Paap, R., 2007. "A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-07, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:8533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/8533/ei2007-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul A, 1994. "Estimation by Simulation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 591-608, November.
    2. Jerry Hausman, 2001. "Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 57-67, Fall.
    3. John K. Dagsvik & Gang Liu, 2006. "A Framework for Analyzing Rank Ordered Panel Data with Application to Automobile Demand," Discussion Papers 480, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Darrell R. Mark & Jayson L. Lusk & M. Scott Daniel, 2004. "Recruiting Agricultural Economics Graduate Students: Student Demand for Program Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 175-184.
    5. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    6. repec:adr:anecst:y:1999:i:55-56:p:09 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
    8. Koop, G & Poirier, D J, 1994. "Rank-Ordered Logit Models: An Empirical Analysis of Ontario Voter Preferences," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 369-388, Oct.-Dec..
    9. Wolak, Frank A., 1989. "Local and Global Testing of Linear and Nonlinear Inequality Constraints in Nonlinear Econometric Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-35, April.
    10. Poterba, James M & Summers, Lawrence H, 1995. "Unemployment Benefits and Labor Market Transitions: A Multinomial Logit Model with Errors in Classification," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(2), pages 207-216, May.
    11. 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.
    12. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    13. Jason Abrevaya & Jerry A. Hausman, 1999. "Semiparametric Estimation with Mismeasured Dependent Variables: An Application to Duration Models for Unemployment Spells," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 55-56, pages 243-275.
    14. 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.
    15. Wolak, Frank A., 1989. "Testing inequality constraints in linear econometric models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 205-235, June.
    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. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    2. Dick van Dijk & Dennis Fok & Philip Hans Franses, 2005. "A multi-level panel STAR model for US manufacturing sectors," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 811-827.
    3. Kockelman, Kara M. & Podgorski, Kaethe & Bina, Michelle & Gadda, Shashank, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 48(3).
    4. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    5. 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.
    6. Hunt, Priscillia E & Smart, Rosanna, 2020. "Investigation of Employers' Preferences for the Design of Staffing Agency Incentives to Hire Ex-Felons," IZA Discussion Papers 13520, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Alain Carpentier & Karine Latouche & Pierre Rainelli & . Association of Environmental And Resource Economists, 2002. "Food safety in the demand for meat quality : the case of pork chops in France," Post-Print hal-01937048, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Fok, D. & van Dijk, D.J.C. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2003. "A multi-level panel smooth transition autoregression for US sectoral production," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2003-43, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Bairagi, Subir K. & Mohanty, Samarendu & Ynion, Jhoanne & Demont, Matty, 2017. "Determinants of Consumer Preferences for Rice Attributes: Evidence from South and Southeast Asia," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258384, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. 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.
    15. Wamisho, Kassu & De Laporte, Aaron & Ripplinger, David, 2015. "Biomass Contracts for Ethanol Production: The Role of Farmer’s Risk Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205703, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    17. Kassu Wamisho Hossiso & Aaron Laporte & David Ripplinger, 2017. "The Effects of Contract Mechanism Design and Risk Preferences on Biomass Supply for Ethanol Production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 339-357, June.
    18. Hassid, Joseph & Maniatis, George & POLEMIS, Michael, 2024. "Do Law Professionals Lack Economic Knowledge? Field Evidence from Greece," MPRA Paper 122550, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Martin Carree & Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos, 2011. "A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 263-269, June.
    20. Susan Athey & Scott Stern, 1998. "An Empirical Framework for Testing Theories About Complimentarity in Organizational Design," NBER Working Papers 6600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discrete choice models; random utility; stated preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection

    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:ems:eureir:8533. 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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feeurnl.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.