Internal validity of conjoint analysis under alternative measurement procedures

Journal of Business Research

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 67-81

  Darmon, René Y ^b   Rouziès, Dominique ^a  

^a HEC PARIS   (France)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033195490     PISSN: 01482963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00068-X     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Acito, F., and Jain, A. K.: Evaluation of conjoint analysis results: A comparison of methods. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (February 1980): 106-112.
2. Akaah, I., and Korgaonkar P. K.: An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, huberhybrid, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (May 1983): 187-197.
3. Bateson, J. E. G., Reibstein, D., and Boulding, W.: Conjoint analysis reliability and validity: A framework for future research, in Review of Marketing, Michael T. Houston Ed., AMA, Chicago, 1987, pp. 457-481.
4. Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E., and Jain, A. K.: The robustness of conjoint analysis: Some Monte-Carlo results. Journal of Marketing Research 15 (May 1978): 300-303.
5. Carroll, J. D., and Green, P. E.: Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part I, conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (November 1995): 385-391.
6. Cattin, P., and Bliemel, F.: Metric vs. nonmetric procedures for multiattribute modeling: Some simulations results. Decision Sciences 9 (July 1978): 472-480.
7. Cattin, P., and Wittink, D. R.: Further beyond conjoint measurement: Toward comparisons of methods. Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research (1976) 35-40.
8. Darmon, R. Y., and Rouziès, D.: Assessing conjoint analysis internal validity: The effect of various continuous attribute level spacings. International Journal of Research in Marketing 6 (September 1989): 35-44.
9. Darmon, R. Y., and Rouziès, D.: Internal validity assessment of conjoint estimated attribute importance weights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (Fall 1991): 315-322.
10. Darmon, R. Y., and Rouziès, D.: Reliability and internal validity of conjoint estimated utility functions under error-free versus error-full conditions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 (December 1994): 465-176.
11. Green, P. E., DeSarbo, W. S., and Kedia, P. K.: On the insensitivity of brand simulation to attribute importance weights. Decision Sciences 11 (July 1980): 439-450.
12. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Bansal, P.: Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: A cautionary note. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (August 1988): 293-300.
13. Green, P. E., Helsen, K., and Shandler, B.: Conjoint internal validity under alternative profile presentations. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (December 1988): 392-397.
14. Green, P. E., and Helsen, K.: Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual-level conjoint analysis: A case study. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August 1989): 346-350.
15. Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5 (September 1978): 103-123.
16. Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 54 (October 1990): 3-19.
17. Jaccard, J., Brinberg, D., and Ackerman, E. J.: Assessing attribute importance: A comparison of six methods. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (March 1986): 463-468.
18. Jain, A. K., Acito, F., Malhotra, N., and Mahajan, V.: A comparison of internal validity of alternative parameter estimation methods in decomposition multiattribute preference models. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August 1979): 313-322.
19. Krishnamurthi, L., and Wittink, D. R.: The value of idiosyncratic functional forms in conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 8 (July 1991): 301-313.
20. Leigh, T. W., MacKay, D. B., and Summers, J. O.: Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: A comparison. Journal of Marketing Research 21 (November 1984): 456-462.
21. Malhotra, N. K.: Structural reliability and stability of nonmetric conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (May 1982): 199-207.
22. McCullough, J., and Best, R.: Conjoint measurement: Temporal stability and structural reliability. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February 1979): 26-31.
23. Pekelman, D., and Sen, S. K.: Improving predictions in conjoint measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (May 1979): 211-220.
24. Reibstein, D., Bateson, J. E. G., and Boulding, W.: Conjoint analysis reliability: Empirical findings. Marketing Science 7 (Summer 1988): 271-286.
25. Segal, M. N.: Reliability of conjoint analysis: Contrasting data collection procedures. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (May 1982): 139-143.
26. Srinivasan, V., and Basu, A. K.: The metric quality of ordered categorical data. Marketing Science 8 (Summer 1989): 205-230.
27. Srinivasan, V., Jain, A. K., and Malhotra, N. K.: Improving predictive power of conjoint analysis by constrained parameter estimation. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (November 1983): 433-438.
28. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Wittink, D. R.: The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute-levels effect in conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 (June 1994): 275-286.
29. Teas, R. K.: An analysis of the temporal stability and structural reliability of metric conjoint analysis procedures. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13(1) (1985): 122-142.
30. Wittink, D. R., and Cattin, P.: Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1981): 101-106.
31. Wittink, D. R., and Cattin, P.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing 53 (July 1989): 91-96.
32. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., and Burhenne, W.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 (January 1994): 41-52.