Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best worst scaling, and discrete choice experiments in a non-hypothetical context
MetadataShow full item record
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.
Journal Title/Title of Proceedings
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
© This is the peer reviewed version of the above article, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12292. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.