IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v56y2012i6p2059-2072.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates

Author

Listed:
  • Crabbe, M.
  • Vandebroek, M.

Abstract

Recent research shows that the inclusion of choice related demo- and sociographics in discrete choice models aids in modeling the choice behavior of consumers substantially. However, the increase in efficiency gained by accounting for covariates in the design of a choice experiment has thus far only been demonstrated for the conditional logit choice model. Previous findings are extended by using covariates in the construction of individualized Bayesian D-efficient designs for the mixed logit choice model. A simulation study illustrates how incorporating covariates affecting choice behavior yields more efficient designs and more accurate estimates and predictions at the individual level. Moreover, it is shown that the possible loss in design efficiency and therefore in estimation and prediction accuracy from including choice unrelated respondent characteristics is negligible.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:6:p:2059-2072
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2011.12.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947311004506
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2011.12.015?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. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    3. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    4. Vishva Danthurebandara & Jie Yu & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Sequential choice designs to estimate the heterogeneity distribution of willingness-to-pay," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 429-448, December.
    5. John Rose & Iain Black, 2006. "Means matter, but variance matter too: Decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 295-310, December.
    6. Marley, Christopher J. & Woods, David C., 2010. "A comparison of design and model selection methods for supersaturated experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3158-3167, December.
    7. Peter Boatwright & Sanjay Dhar & Peter Rossi, 2004. "The Role of Retail Competition, Demographics and Account Retail Strategy as Drivers of Promotional Sensitivity," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 169-190, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Arora, Neeraj & Huber, Joel, 2001. "Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 273-283, September.
    10. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Comparing different sampling schemes for approximating the integrals involved in the efficient design of stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1268-1289, December.
    11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    12. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    13. Jie Yu & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2009. "Efficient Conjoint Choice Designs in the Presence of Respondent Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 122-135, 01-02.
    14. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    15. Ann Owen & Julio Videras, 2009. "Reconsidering social capital: a latent class approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 555-582, December.
    16. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    17. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    18. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    19. 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.
    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. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    2. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Willingness to pay for regional electricity generation – A question of green values and regional product beliefs?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. 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).

    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. Crabbe, Marjolein & Akinc, Deniz & Vandebroek, Martina, 2014. "Fast algorithms to generate individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-15.
    2. 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.
    3. Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel & Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Sörensen, Kenneth, 2016. "An integrated algorithm for the optimal design of stated choice experiments with partial profiles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 648-669.
    4. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    5. Vishva Danthurebandara & Jie Yu & Martina Vandebroek, 2015. "Designing choice experiments by optimizing the complexity level to individual abilities," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Vishva Danthurebandara & Jie Yu & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Sequential choice designs to estimate the heterogeneity distribution of willingness-to-pay," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 429-448, December.
    7. Nedka Dechkova Nikiforova & Rossella Berni & Jesús Fernando López‐Fidalgo, 2022. "Optimal approximate choice designs for a two‐step coffee choice, taste and choice again experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1895-1917, November.
    8. John M. Rose & Michiel C.J. Bliemer, 2014. "Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 7, pages 152-177, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. KESSELS, Roselinde & BRADLEY, Jones & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "A comparison of partial profile designs for discrete choice experiments with an application in software development," Working Papers 2012004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    10. Danaf, Mazen & Atasoy, Bilge & de Azevedo, Carlos Lima & Ding-Mastera, Jing & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Cox, Nathaniel & Zhao, Fang & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2019. "Context-aware stated preferences with smartphone-based travel surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 35-50.
    11. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    12. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    13. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Comparing different sampling schemes for approximating the integrals involved in the efficient design of stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1268-1289, December.
    14. Rossella Berni & Nedka Dechkova Nikiforova & Patrizia Pinelli, 2024. "An Optimal Design through a Compound Criterion for Integrating Extra Preference Information in a Choice Experiment: A Case Study on Moka Ground Coffee," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Kessels, Roselinde, 2016. "Homogeneous versus heterogeneous designs for stated choice experiments: Ain't homogeneous designs all bad?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 2-9.
    16. Andreas Falke & Harald Hruschka, 2017. "A Monte Carlo study of design-generating algorithms for the latent class mixed logit model," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(4), pages 1035-1053, October.
    17. Aiste Ruseckaite & Peter Goos & Dennis Fok, 2017. "Bayesian D-optimal choice designs for mixtures," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(2), pages 363-386, February.
    18. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    19. Denis Sauré & Juan Pablo Vielma, 2019. "Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 315-338, March.
    20. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.

    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:56:y:2012:i:6:p:2059-2072. 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.