Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments

Street, DJ; Burgess, L; Louviere, JJ

Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments

Street, DJ

Burgess, L Louviere, JJ

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, 22 (4), pp. 459 - 470
Issue Date:: 2005-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2005002295.pdf		913.84 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	Street, DJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4476-0656	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Burgess, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Louviere, JJ	en_US
dc.date.issued	2005-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, 22 (4), pp. 459 - 470	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0167-8116	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5199
dc.description.abstract	In this paper we compare a number of common strategies for constructing discrete choice experiments. Two of the strategies, including one based on theoretical constructions for optimal discrete choice experiments, produce designs that are better than those that come about from random grouping and from using the LMA construction. A simple account of this theoretical construction is given. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP0343632
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Research in Marketing	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Marketing	en_US
dc.title	Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	22	en_US
utslib.for	1505 Marketing	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 - CENSOC - Study of Choice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	22	en_US

Abstract:

In this paper we compare a number of common strategies for constructing discrete choice experiments. Two of the strategies, including one based on theoretical constructions for optimal discrete choice experiments, produce designs that are better than those that come about from random grouping and from using the LMA construction. A simple account of this theoretical construction is given. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5199