Comparing designs for choice experiments: A case study

Burgess, L; Street, DJ; Wasi, N

Comparing designs for choice experiments: A case study

Burgess, L Street, DJ

Wasi, N

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 2011, 5 (1), pp. 25 - 46
Issue Date:: 2011-03-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2011000904OK.pdf		450.14 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Burgess, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Street, DJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4476-0656	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wasi, N	en_US
dc.date.issued	2011-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 2011, 5 (1), pp. 25 - 46	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1559-8608	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17943
dc.description.abstract	This paper describes an empirical comparison of the performance of four designs for a discrete choice experiment. These designs were chosen to represent the range of construction techniques that are currently popular for choice experiments when no prior knowledge of the parameters is available. Each design had 320 respondents who each completed 16 choice sets. The results suggest that for the multinomial logit model (MNL) the design that is used at this stage is fairly unimportant. As the sample size gets smaller, however, differences between the designs become apparent. We also analysed the results using four different models which accommodate preference heterogeneity. We find that any of these models are able to predict choices more accurately for born in-sample and out-of-sample than the MNL model for the designs used here, and that the differences across designs arc larger for models with more parameters, although preliminary results suggest the gain appears to depend on the underlying preference structure. © Grace Scientific Publishing, LLC.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/15598608.2011.10412048	en_US
dc.title	Comparing designs for choice experiments: A case study	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.for	0104 Statistics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	5	en_US

Abstract:

This paper describes an empirical comparison of the performance of four designs for a discrete choice experiment. These designs were chosen to represent the range of construction techniques that are currently popular for choice experiments when no prior knowledge of the parameters is available. Each design had 320 respondents who each completed 16 choice sets. The results suggest that for the multinomial logit model (MNL) the design that is used at this stage is fairly unimportant. As the sample size gets smaller, however, differences between the designs become apparent. We also analysed the results using four different models which accommodate preference heterogeneity. We find that any of these models are able to predict choices more accurately for born in-sample and out-of-sample than the MNL model for the designs used here, and that the differences across designs arc larger for models with more parameters, although preliminary results suggest the gain appears to depend on the underlying preference structure. © Grace Scientific Publishing, LLC.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/17943