IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cauman/461.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A model of ranked conjoint-data and implications for evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Teichert, Thorsten Andreas

Abstract

This article examines basic features of ranked Conjoint-data, analyzes the adequacy of evaluation methods and proposes improvements for better utilizing the information provided by ranked data. It is shown that commonly used goodness-of-fit measures provide inadequate proxy measures for assessing rank consistency and internal validity of estimates. In addition, commonly used evaluation methods, such as OLS and LINMAP, are shown to be based on arbitrary propositions which do not fulfill the requisite traits postulated by the model of ranked Conjoint-data. Resulting shortcomings on estimation outcomes are evaluated with means of simulation analyses. New insights into the achievable estimation accuracy are gained and possibilities for improvement are shown.

Suggested Citation

  • Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "A model of ranked conjoint-data and implications for evaluation," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 461, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cauman:461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/147573/1/manuskript_461.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. U. Umesh & Sanjay Mishra, 1990. "A Monte Carlo investigation of conjoint analysis index-of-fit: Goodness of fit, significance and power," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 33-44, March.
    2. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 473-493, December.
    3. V. Srinivasan & Amiya K. Basu, 1989. "The Metric Quality of Ordered Categorical Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 205-230.
    4. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1996. "The confounding of effects in rank-based conjoint-analysis," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 409, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    5. 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.
    6. Dominique Rouzies & Renée Darmon, 1989. "Assessing Conjoint Analysis Internal Validity: the Effect of Various Continuous Attribute Level Spacings," Post-Print hal-00537869, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    9. Dominique Rouzies & Renée Darmon, 1991. "Internal Validity Assessment of Conjoint Estimated Attribute Importance Weights," Post-Print hal-00537856, HAL.
    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. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    2. Sell, Sandra & Lopatta, Kerstin & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2010. "Der Einfluss der Besteuerung auf die Rechtsformwahl: Eine Conjoint-Analyse," Discussion Papers 2010/10, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    3. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    4. Darmon, Rene Y. & Rouzies, Dominique, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 67-81, September.
    5. Bragge, Johanna, 2001. "Premediation analysis of the energy taxation dispute in Finland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Evann Keith TABASA & Marvin CRUZ, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for Internal Combustion Subcompact Sedan Cars in General Santos City, Philippines," Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(4), pages 27-37, December.
    7. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1992. "Estimating preference cones from discrete choices: Computational techniques and experiences," Discussion Papers, Series I 259, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    12. 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).
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    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. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    17. 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).
    18. 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).
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:cauman:461. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibkiede.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.