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, 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.

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

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:cup:agrerw:v:34:y:2005:i:02:p:238-252_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Agricultural and Resource Economics Review from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().