Skip to Main Content
Due to a lapse in federal funding, this USDA website will not be actively updated. Once funding has been reestablished, online operations will continue.
A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response FormatsAuthor(s): Kevin J. Boyle; Thomas P. Holmes; Mario F. Teisl; Brian Roe
Source: Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 83(2) (May 2001): 441-454
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: View PDF (477 KB)
DescriptionA split-sample design is used to evaluate the convergent validity of three response formats used in conjoint analysis experiments. WC investigate whether recoding rating data to rankings and choose-one formats, and recoding ranking data to choose one. result in structural models and welfare estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from estimates based on ranking or choose-one questions. Our results indicate that convergent validity of ratings, ranks, and choose one is not established. in addition, WC: find that people frequently use "ties" in responses to rating questions. and that the option not to choose any of the alternatives ("opt-out") affects some preference estimates.
- You may send email to email@example.com to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationBoyle, Kevin J.; Holmes, Thomas P.; Teisl, Mario F.; Roe, Brian. 2001. A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 83(2) (May 2001): 441-454
Keywordsconjoint analysis. convergent validity. forest valuation. hicksian surplus
- Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species
- Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category
- The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: The case of wildfire in high risk communities
XML: View XML