Best-Worst Scaling with many items

Keith Chrzan and Megan Peitz

Journal of choice modelling, 2019, vol. 30, issue C, 61-72

Abstract: Best-worst scaling (BWS) has become so useful that practitioners feel pressure to include ever more items in their experiments. Researchers wanting more items and enough observations of each item by each respondent to support individual respondent-level utility models may greatly increase the burden on respondents, resulting in respondent fatigue and potentially in lower quality responses. Wirth and Wolfrath (2012) proposed two methods for creating BWS designs that allow for large numbers of items and respondent-level utility estimation, Sparse and Express BWS. This study aims to uncover the recommended approach when the goal is recovering individual respondent-level utilities and intends to do so by comparing the relative ability of Sparse and Express BWS to capture the utilities that would have resulted from a full BWS experiment, one with at least three observations of each item by each respondent. The current study repeats previous comparisons of Sparse and Express BWS using a new empirical data set. It also extends previous findings by collecting enough observations from each respondent for both a full experiment and one of the proposed methods, Express BWS and Sparse BWS. The results replicate and extend previous findings regarding the superior ability of the Sparse BWS methodology, relative to Express, to reproduce “known” utilities or utilities that result from a full BWS design.

Keywords: Best-worst scaling; Discrete choice experiments; Large numbers of items (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534517301355
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:30:y:2019:i:c:p:61-72

DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2019.01.002

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of choice modelling is currently edited by S. Hess and J.M. Rose

More articles in Journal of choice modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().