Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 221-246 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics |
| Volume | 63 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 14 Feb 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Print publication - Apr 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Discrete choice experiment
- Ranking conjoint analysis
- Best worst scaling
- External validity
- Willingness to pay
Cite this
}
Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best worst scaling, and discrete choice experiments in a non-hypothetical context . / Yangui, A; Akaichi, F; Costa-Font, M; Maria, Gil Jose.
In: Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 63, No. 2, 04.2019, p. 221-246.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best worst scaling, and discrete choice experiments in a non-hypothetical context
AU - Yangui, A
AU - Akaichi, F
AU - Costa-Font, M
AU - Maria, Gil Jose
PY - 2019/4
Y1 - 2019/4
N2 - This study assesses the comparability of discrete choice experiment, ranking conjoint analysis, and multi-profile best worst scaling in a non-hypothetical context in terms of estimated partworths, willingness to pay, response consistency, and external validity. Overall, the results suggest that (1) the conjoint analysis formats that were used in this study provide similar estimated WTP, but different estimated partworths and computed external validity, (2) the inclusion of the full ranking information in the estimation of the parameters of interest affects the estimated partworths, but not the estimated willingness to pay, and (3) it is more appropriate to use multi-profile best worst scaling over discrete choice experiment and ranking conjoint analysis because it has better predictive power of consumers’ preferences and provides estimated willingness to pay comparable to those obtained in the others conjoint analysis formats. The best worst scaling’ cognitive process could be considered clearness for participants implying significant increment of it predictive power.
AB - This study assesses the comparability of discrete choice experiment, ranking conjoint analysis, and multi-profile best worst scaling in a non-hypothetical context in terms of estimated partworths, willingness to pay, response consistency, and external validity. Overall, the results suggest that (1) the conjoint analysis formats that were used in this study provide similar estimated WTP, but different estimated partworths and computed external validity, (2) the inclusion of the full ranking information in the estimation of the parameters of interest affects the estimated partworths, but not the estimated willingness to pay, and (3) it is more appropriate to use multi-profile best worst scaling over discrete choice experiment and ranking conjoint analysis because it has better predictive power of consumers’ preferences and provides estimated willingness to pay comparable to those obtained in the others conjoint analysis formats. The best worst scaling’ cognitive process could be considered clearness for participants implying significant increment of it predictive power.
KW - Discrete choice experiment
KW - Ranking conjoint analysis
KW - Best worst scaling
KW - External validity
KW - Willingness to pay
U2 - 10.1111/1467-8489.12292
DO - 10.1111/1467-8489.12292
M3 - Article
VL - 63
SP - 221
EP - 246
JO - Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
JF - Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
SN - 1364-985X
IS - 2
ER -