IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v54y2010i6p1426-1433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices

Author

Listed:
  • Vermeulen, Bart
  • Goos, Peter
  • Vandebroek, Martina

Abstract

Conjoint choice experiments elicit individuals' preferences for the attributes of a good by asking respondents to indicate repeatedly their most preferred alternative in a number of choice sets. However, conjoint choice experiments can be used to obtain more information than that revealed by the individuals' single best choices. A way to obtain extra information is by means of best-worst choice experiments in which respondents are asked to indicate not only their most preferred alternative but also their least preferred one in each choice set. To create D-optimal designs for these experiments, an expression for the Fisher information matrix for the maximum-difference model is developed. Semi-Bayesian D-optimal best-worst choice designs are derived and compared with commonly used design strategies in marketing in terms of the D-optimality criterion and prediction accuracy. Finally, it is shown that best-worst choice experiments yield considerably more information than choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1426-1433, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:6:p:1426-1433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(10)00003-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    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. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    2. Kessels, Roselinde & Jones, Bradley & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2009. "An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27(2), pages 279-291.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    4. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    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. David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho, 2016. "Identifying a behaviourally relevant choice set from stated choice data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 197-217, March.
    2. Denise Doiron & Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Deborah J. Street, 2014. "Job preferences of students and new graduates in nursing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 924-939, March.
    3. Crabbe, M. & Vandebroek, M., 2012. "Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 2059-2072.
    4. Paudel, Bindu & Zhou, Mo, 2024. "Are consumers “green” enthusiasts or skeptics? Evidence from nontimber forest products," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    7. de Palma, André & Kilani, Karim, 2017. "Identities for maximum, minimum, and maxmin random utility models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 135-139.
    8. Phillips, Yvonne, 2011. "When the Tide is High: Estimating the Welfare Impact of Coastal Erosion Management," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115414, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Balcombe, Paul & Rigby, Dan & Azapagic, Adisa, 2014. "Investigating the importance of motivations and barriers related to microgeneration uptake in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 403-418.

    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. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    2. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Willmarth, Blake & Turner, Robert, 2010. "Respondent Consistency in a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2010-05, Department of Economics, Colgate University.
    5. 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.
    6. Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Arentze, Theo & Horeni, Oliver & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2017. "Deriving attribute utilities from mental representations of complex decisions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-38.
    7. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    8. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    10. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    11. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    12. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Andrea N. Natsky & Andrew Vakulin & Ching Li Chai-Coetzer & R. Doug McEvoy & Robert J. Adams & Billingsley Kaambwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes of Care Pathways for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea from the Perspective of Diagnosed Patients and High-Risk Individuals: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 597-607, July.
    14. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    15. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    16. Sándor Zsolt, 2013. "Monte Carlo Simulation in Random Coefficient Logit Models Involving Large Sums," Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 1(1), pages 85-108, July.
    17. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    18. Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julian & Delgado-Lindeman, Maira, 2020. "Stakeholders perceptions to sustainable urban freight policies in emerging markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-348.
    19. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    20. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.

    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:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:6:p:1426-1433. 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.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    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.