Rank-order choice-based conjoint experiments: Efficiency and design

Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference

Volumn 141, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 2519-2531

  Vermeulen, Bart ^a   Goos, Peter ^b,c   Vandebroek, Martina ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^c ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d Katholieke Universiteit Leuven   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Bayesian optimal design; Conjoint analysis; D optimality; Rank order experiment; Rank ordered conditional logit model

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954618611     PISSN: 03783758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2011.01.019     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Allison P., Christakis N. Logit models for sets of ranked items. Sociological Methodology 1994, 24:199-228.
2. Baarsma B. The valuation of the Ijmeer Nature Reserve using conjoint analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 25:343-356.
3. Bateman I., Carson R., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett J., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
4. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 1981, 16:1-19.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T. Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transport Policy 2002, 9:107-116.
6. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T., Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. Journal of Business Research 1992, 37:149-164.
7. Boyle K., Holmes T., Teisl M., Roe B. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 83:441-454.
8. Carlsson, F., 1999. Private vs. business and rail vs. air passengers: willingness to pay for transport attributes. In: Working Papers in Economics, Göteborg University, Department of Economics.
9. Chapman R., Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research 1982, 19:288-301.
10. Gustafsson A., Ekdahl F., Bergman B. Conjoint analysis: a useful tool in the design process. Total Quality Management 1999, 10:327-343.
11. Hausman J., Ruud P. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics 1987, 34:83-104.
12. Kessels R., Goos P., Vandebroek M. A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 2006, 43:409-419.
13. Kessels R., Jones B., Goos P., Vandebroek M. Recommendations on the use of Bayesian optimal designs for choice experiments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2008, 24:737-744.
14. Kessels R., Jones B., Goos P., Vandebroek M. An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 2009, 27:279-291.
15. Ortúzar J.D.D., Rodríguez G. Valuing reductions in environmental pollution in a residential location context. Transportation Research Part D 2002, 7:407-427.
16. Sálensminde K. Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution and noise. Transportation Research Part D 1999, 4:13-27.
17. Sándor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managersá prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 2001, 38:430-444.
18. Sándor Z., Wedel M. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 2005, 42:210-218.
19. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
20. Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., Vandebroek, M., 2007. Rank-order conjoint experiments: efficiency and design. Research Report KBI_0734, Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 30 pp.
21. Woods D., Lewis S., Eccleston J., Russel K. Designs for generalized linear models with several variables and model uncertainty. Technometrics 2006, 48:284-292.