Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis

R Wes Harrison (), Jeffrey Gillespie and Deacue Fields

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2005, vol. 34, issue 2, 15

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: Research; Methods/; Statistical; Methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10238/files/34020238.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis (2005)
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:ags:arerjl:10238

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10238

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Agricultural and Resource Economics Review from Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().