A formal and empirical comparison of two score measures for best–worst scaling
T. Islam and
Journal of choice modelling, 2016, vol. 21, issue C, 15-24
Best–worst scaling (BWS) is a method that asks individuals to choose the most and the least preferred option from a set of available options. There has been extensive discussion and evaluation of the use of scores (data summaries) in the analysis of such data. Here we motivate, summarize, and compare the usefulness of two such score measures: the analytical closed form solution (Lipovetsky and Conklin, 2014, Journal of Choice Modelling) and normalized best–worst scores (Louviere et al., 2015, Cambridge University Press). We conclude that both have underlying motivations in the maxdiff model of best–worst choice and that the analytical closed form solution provides better fits to the aggregate choices in several best–worst choice data sets.
Keywords: Best–worst scaling; Best–worst choice; Discrete choice; Experiment; Scores; Choice model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:21:y:2016:i:c:p:15-24
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 Dana Niculescu ().