Three methods for evaluating conjoint analysis results are described and compared. Each of the methods is applied to a data base that involved three separate conjoint analysis tasks for 249 respondents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcitoFranklin (1977), “An Investigation of Some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement,” in Contemporary Marketing Thought, Educators' Conference Proceedings, B. A. and BellengerD. N., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
2.
BitherStewart W. and WrightPeter (1971), “Preferences Between Product Consultants: Choice vs. Preference Functions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (June), 39–47.
3.
CarmoneFrank J., GreenPaul E., and JainArun K. (1978), “The Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monté Carlo Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 300–3.
4.
CattinPhilippe and WittinkDick R. (1976), “A Monté Carlo Study of Metric and Non-Metric Estimation Methods for Multiattribute Models,” Research Paper No. 341, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
5.
CochranWilliam Gemmell and CoxGertrude M. (1957), Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6.
FreundJohn E. (1962), Mathematical Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
7.
GreenPaul E. (1974a), “On the Design of Multiattribute Choice Experiments Involving Large Numbers of Factors and Factor Levels,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. I., WardS. and WrightP., eds. Urbana, Illinois: Association for Consumer Research.
8.
GreenPaul E. (1974b), “On The Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (September), 61–8.
9.
GreenPaul E. and RaoVithala R. (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 335–63.
10.
GreenPaul E. and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Behavior; Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–23.
11.
GreenPaul E. and WindYoram (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach. Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.
12.
JainArun K. (1975), “A Method for Investigating and Representing Implicit Theory of Social Class,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (June), 53–9.
13.
JainArun K., AcitoFranklin, MalhotraNaresh K., and MahajanVijay (1979), “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decomposition Multiattribute Preference Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 313.
14.
KlahrDavid A. (1964), “A Monté Carlo Investigation of the Statistical Significance of Kruskal's Nonmetric Scaling Procedure,” Psychometrika, 29 (March), 1027.
15.
KruskalJoseph B. (1965), “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (March), 251–63.
16.
ParkerBarnett R. and SrinivasanV. (1976), “A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health Care Facilities,” Operations Research, 24 (September-October), 991–1025.
17.
ScottJerome E. and WrightPeter (1976), “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 221–4.
18.
ShockerAllan D. and SrinivasanV. (1976), “LINMAP (Version II): A FORTRAN IV Computer Program for Analyzing Ordinal Preference (Dominance) Judgments via Linear Programming Techniques and for CONJOINT Measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 221–4.
19.
SpenceIan and OgilvieJohn C. (1973), “A Table of Expected Stress Values for Random Rankings in Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 8 (October), 511–8.
20.
StensonH. H. and KnollR. L. (1969), “Goodness of Fit for Random Rankings in Kruskal's Nonmetric Scaling Procedure,” Psychological Bulletin, 71 (August), 122–6.
21.
WinerB. J. (1971), Statistical Principles in Experimental Designs, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
