Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis

R. Wes Harrison, Jeffrey Gillespie and Deacue Fields
Additional contact information
R. Wes Harrison: Louisiana State University
Jeffrey Gillespie: Louisiana State University
Deacue Fields: Auburn University

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2005, vol. 34, issue 2, pages 238–252

Abstract: Of twenty-three agricultural economics conjoint analyses conducted between 1990 and 2001, seventeen used interval-rating scales, with estimation procedures varying widely. This study tests cardinality assumptions in conjoint analysis when interval-rating scales are used, and tests whether the ordered probit or two-limit tobit model is the most valid. Results indicate that cardinality assumptions are invalid, but estimates of the underlying utility scale for the two models do not differ. Thus, while the ordered probit model is theoretically more appealing, the two-limit tobit model may be more useful in practice, especially in cases with limited degrees of freedom, such as with individual-level conjoint models.

Keywords: ordered probit; two-limit probit; conjoint analysis; cardinality (search for similar items in EconPapers)

Downloads: (external link)
http://agecon.lib.um ... rid=26757&ftype=.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Agricultural and Resource Economics Review from Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by David R. Just ().