IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i2p1063-1076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Alain De Beuckelaer
  • Jarl Kampen
  • J. Van Trijp

Abstract

The popular use of graded paired comparisons in empirical studies assessing consumers’ preferences, and the potential effect of cross-national differences in (extreme) response styles on the quality of graded paired comparison data, supply ample reasons for an empirical verification of the cross-national validity of such scales. Using data from a cross-national margarine brand study including fourteen different nations (N=4,560), we found sufficient statistical evidence for cross-national bias due to existing cross-national differences in extreme responses. However, the low values reported for effect size measures (intra-class correlation coefficient, R 2 value) indicated that the impact of the cross-national bias is marginal. The findings from our study provided empirical support for the hypothesis that graded paired comparison data can be meaningfully compared across nations. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Alain De Beuckelaer & Jarl Kampen & J. Van Trijp, 2013. "An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 1063-1076, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:1063-1076
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9583-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9583-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9583-1?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. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. John R. Hauser & Glen L. Urban, 1977. "A Normative Methodology for Modeling Consumer Response to Innovation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 579-619, August.
    3. Viswanathan, Madhubalan & Sudman, Seymour & Johnson, Michael, 2004. "Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response:: Implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 108-124, February.
    4. Ofir, Chezy, 2004. "Reexamining Latitude of Price Acceptability and Price Thresholds: Predicting Basic Consumer Reaction to Price," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 612-621, March.
    5. Jarl Kampen, 2007. "The Impact of Survey Methodology and Context on Central Tendency, Nonresponse and Associations of Subjective Indicators of Government Performance," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 793-813, December.
    6. Harold Gulliksen, 1956. "A least squares solution for paired comparisons with incomplete data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 21(2), pages 125-134, June.
    7. Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo & Rotaris, Lucia, 2005. "Logistics managers' stated preferences for freight service attributes," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 201-215, May.
    8. Alan Agresti, 1992. "Analysis of Ordinal Paired Comparison Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 41(2), pages 287-297, June.
    9. Roland Helm & Armin Scholl & Laura Manthey & Michael Steiner, 2004. "Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 12-29.
    10. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    12. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Trine Kjær & Jørgen Lauridsen & Jan Sørensen, 2007. "Graded pairs comparison ‐ does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 513-529, May.
    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. Alain Beuckelaer & Machiel Zeeman & Hans Trijp, 2015. "Assessment of the cross-national validity of an End-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking scale," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1267-1286, May.

    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. Hafezi, Maryam & Zolfagharinia, Hossein, 2018. "Green product development and environmental performance: Investigating the role of government regulations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 395-410.
    2. Jonas Jasper, 2019. "A Var Analysis of the Connection between FDI and Economic Growth: A Case Study from Vietnam after 30 Years Reforms," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 51-67, Februaury.
    3. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    4. Jong Seok Kim, 2017. "Empirical Analysis Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For Smart Phone Attributes In Multi-Countries," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(02), pages 1-37, February.
    5. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    6. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    7. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    8. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. Nagurney, Anna & Saberi, Sara & Shukla, Shivani & Floden, Jonas, 2015. "Supply chain network competition in price and quality with multiple manufacturers and freight service providers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 248-267.
    12. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. Steven M. Shugan, 2005. "Brand Loyalty Programs: Are They Shams?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 185-193.
    14. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & von Oppen, Matthias, 2005. "Private Participation In Agricultural Extension In Nigeria And Benin: Determining The Willingness To Pay For Information," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19401, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    17. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    18. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    19. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    20. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, 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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:1063-1076. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.