IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v41y2021ics1755534521000415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint analysis of preferences and drop out data in discrete choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Maaya, Leonard
  • Meulders, Michel
  • Vandebroek, Martina

Abstract

Choice data appear together with drop out data indicating if respondents completed the exercise. In case of non-completion, the choice sequences end at the tasks where the respondents exited the study. In the analysis of choice data, the focus is always on choices made while the drop out behavior is completely ignored. However, the choice making and the drop out process could be latently related. For instance, respondents who are more likely to drop out of the exercise could give less consistent choices throughout or just before they exit. In such cases, ignoring the drop out dimension could lead to biased or inefficient results. In this paper, we use shared random effects and covariate effects to model the association between a scaled multinomial logit model for the choices and two different models for the drop out component. Through simulations, we show that a joint model provides less biased and more precise estimates and its 95% credible intervals have better coverage for true parameter values.

Suggested Citation

  • Maaya, Leonard & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2021. "Joint analysis of preferences and drop out data in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:41:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000415
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534521000415
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100308?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. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    3. Lang Wu & Wei Liu & Grace Y. Yi & Yangxin Huang, 2012. "Analysis of Longitudinal and Survival Data: Joint Modeling, Inference Methods, and Issues," Journal of Probability and Statistics, Hindawi, vol. 2012, pages 1-17, December.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Yi Qian & Hui Xie, 2011. "No Customer Left Behind: A Distribution-Free Bayesian Approach to Accounting for Missing Xs in Marketing Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 717-736, July.
    6. Sanko, Nobuhiro & Hess, Stephane & Dumont, Jeffrey & Daly, Andrew, 2014. "Contrasting imputation with a latent variable approach to dealing with missing income in choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 47-57.
    7. Irannezhad, Elnaz & Prato, Carlo & Hickman, Mark, 2019. "A joint hybrid model of the choices of container terminals and of dwell time," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 119-133.
    8. Varotto, Silvia F. & Glerum, Aurélie & Stathopoulos, Amanda & Bierlaire, Michel & Longo, Giovanni, 2017. "Mitigating the impact of errors in travel time reporting on mode choice modelling," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 236-246.
    9. 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.
    10. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    11. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    12. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    13. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.
    14. John Whitehead, 1980. "Fitting Cox's Regression Model to Survival Data Using Glim," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 29(3), pages 268-275, November.
    15. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    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. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    2. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Ge, Ge & Godager, Geir, 2021. "Predicting strategic medical choices: An application of a quantal response equilibrium choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes and the role of scale heterogeneity," FORLand Working Papers 04 (2018), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    5. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    6. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    8. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Ashraf, Faisal Bin & Haghighi, Ali Torabi & Hellsten, Seppo & Huuki, Hannu & Karhinen, Santtu & Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Maria & Marttila, Hannu & Pongracz, Eva & Roma, 2024. "Estimating the economic value of hydropeaking externalities in regulated rivers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PA).
    10. Nirmale, Sangram Krishna & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2023. "Discrete choice models with multiplicative stochasticity in choice environment variables: Application to accommodating perception errors in driver behaviour models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 169-193.
    11. Beeramoole, Prithvi Bhat & Arteaga, Cristian & Pinz, Alban & Haque, Md Mazharul & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-Logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    12. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    13. Lew, Daniel K. & Wallmo, Kristy, 2017. "Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-97.
    14. Wang, Jian & Iversen, Tor & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Godager, Geir, 2020. "Are patient-regarding preferences stable? Evidence from a laboratory experiment with physicians and medical students from different countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    15. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    18. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.

    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:eejocm:v:41:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000415. 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.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.