Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis

被引:115
|
作者
Toubia, O [1 ]
Hauser, JR
Simester, DI
机构
[1] MIT, Mkt Grp, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[2] MIT, Sloan Sch Management, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1509/jmkr.41.1.116.25082
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The authors propose and test a new "polyhedral" choice-based conjoint analysis question-design method that adapts each respondent's choice sets on the basis of previous answers by that respondent. Polyhedral "interior-point" algorithms design questions that quickly reduce the sets of partworths that are consistent with the respondent's choices. To identify domains in which individual adaptation is promising (and domains in which it is not), the authors evaluate the performance of polyhedral choice-based conjoint analysis methods with Monte Carlo experiments. They vary magnitude (response accuracy), respondent heterogeneity, estimation method, and question-design method in a 4 x 23 experiment. The estimation methods are hierarchical Bayes and analytic center. The latter is a new individual-level estimation procedure that is a by-product of polyhedral question design. The benchmarks for individual adaptation are random designs, orthogonal designs, and aggregate customization. The simulations suggest that polyhedral question design does well in many domains, particularly those in which heterogeneity and partworth magnitudes are relatively large. The authors test feasibility, test an important design criterion (choice balance), and obtain empirical data on convergence by describing an application to the design of executive education programs in which 354 Web-based respondents answered stated-choice tasks with four service profiles each.
引用
收藏
页码:116 / 131
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Multimodal preference heterogeneity in choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study
    Goeken N.
    Kurz P.
    Steiner W.J.
    [J]. Journal of Business Economics, 2024, 94 (1) : 137 - 185
  • [32] Predicting dentists' decisions: a choice-based conjoint analysis of Medicaid participation
    Kateeb, Elham T.
    McKernan, Susan C.
    Gaeth, Gary J.
    Kuthy, Raymond A.
    Adrianse, Nancy B.
    Damiano, Peter C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY, 2016, 76 (03) : 171 - 178
  • [33] The service attributes of robo-advisors: a choice-based conjoint analysis
    Zhou, Jie
    Zhou, Huade
    Zhao, Wenqiang
    Wang, Chuanhe
    Pei, Wansheng
    [J]. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & PEOPLE, 2023,
  • [34] Understanding preferences for EEE collection services: A choice-based conjoint analysis
    Mansuy, Jean
    Verlinde, Sara
    Macharis, Cathy
    [J]. RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2020, 161
  • [35] Factors Associated with Pediatric Dentists' Choice of Amalgam: Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Approach
    Bakhurji, E.
    Scott, T.
    Sohn, W.
    [J]. JDR CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, 2019, 4 (03) : 246 - 254
  • [36] The Effects of Incentives in a Choice-Based Conjoint Pricing Study
    Ye, Hongjun
    Bhatt, Siddharth
    Zhong, Wenting
    Watson, Jan
    Sargent, Amanda
    Topoglu, Yigit
    Ayaz, Hasan
    Suri, Rajneesh
    [J]. ADVANCES IN NEUROERGONOMICS AND COGNITIVE ENGINEERING, 2020, 953 : 84 - 90
  • [37] Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis A New Patient-Centered Approach to the Assessment of Health Service Preferences
    Cunningham, Charles E.
    Deal, Ken
    Chen, Yvonne
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2010, 3 (04): : 257 - 273
  • [38] Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models
    Natter, M
    Feurstein, M
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2002, 137 (02) : 448 - 458
  • [39] Evaluation of urology trainee preferences in didactic education: a choice-based conjoint analysis
    Li, Yi
    Spradling, Kyle
    Allen, Isabel Elaine
    Conti, Simon
    Hampson, Lindsay A.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2023, 10
  • [40] Entrepreneurial branding: measuring consumer preferences through choice-based conjoint analysis
    Eggers, Fabian
    Eggers, Felix
    Kraus, Sascha
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2016, 12 (02) : 427 - 444