Though the use of conjoint analysis has increased substantially in recent years, relatively little empirical evidence has been published on how its reliability and validity compares with that of alternative methodological approaches. The authors report the results of a study designed to compare the test-retest reliability and predictive validity of several alternative conjoint analysis techniques with that of self-explicated weights under the condition of all attributes being dichotomous. The findings fail to demonstrate greater reliability and validity for the conjoint analysis techniques considered.
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,”Proceedings, American Marketing Association, 82–5.
2.
AkaahIshmael P., and KorgaonkarPradeep K. (1983), “An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May), 187–97.
3.
CampbellDonald T. (1960), “Recommendations for APA Test Standards Regarding Construct, Trait, or Discriminant Validity,”American Psychologist, 15(August), 546–53.
4.
CampbellDonald T., and StanleyJulian (1966), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.Chicago: Rand McNally, Inc.
5.
CarmoneF. J., GreenPaul E., and RobertsonD. J. (1968), “TRICON—An IBM 360–165 Fortran IV Program for the Triangularization of Conjoint Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 5(May), 219–20.
6.
CattinPhilippe, GelfandAlan E., and DanesJeffrey (1983), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(February), 29–35.
7.
CattinPhilippe, and WeinbergerMarc (1980), “Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, OlsonJerry, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,780–3.
8.
CattinPhilippe, and WittinkDick R. (1982), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,”Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer), 44–53.
9.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
10.
DavidsonJ. D. (1973), “Forecasting Traffic on STOL,”Operations Research Quarterly, 24(December), 561–9.
11.
DykstraOttoJr. (1958), “Factorial Experimentation in Scheffé's Analysis of Variance for Paired Comparisons,”American Statistical Association Journal, 53, 529–42.
12.
GreenPaul E., CarmoneFrank J., and WindYoram (1972), “Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement,”Behavorial Science, 17(May), 288–99.
13.
GreenPaul E., and Douglas CarrollJ., and CarmoneFrank J. (1978), “Some New Types of Fractional Factorial Designs for Marketing Experiments,” in Research in Marketing, Vol. I, ShethJ. N., ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,99–122.
14.
GreenPaul E., and Douglas CarrollJ., and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization Via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Summer), 17–37.
15.
GreenPaul E., GoldbergStephen M., and MontemayorMila (1981), “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter), 33–41.
16.
GreenPaul E., and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5(September), 103–23.
17.
GreenPaul E., and WindYoram (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach.Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
18.
JainArun K., and AcitoF., and MalhotraN., and MahajanV. (1979), “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decomposition Multiattribute Preference Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16(August), 313–22.
19.
JohnsonR. M. (1974), “Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11(May), 121–7.
20.
KruskalJoseph E. (1965), “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 27, 251–63.
21.
MalhotraNaresh K. (1982), “Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19(May), 199–207.
22.
McCulloughJames, and BestRoger (1979), “Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 26–31.
23.
NeslinScott A. (1981), “Linking Product Features to Perceptions: Self-Stated Versus Statistically Revealed Importance Weights,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 80–6.
24.
ParkerBarnett R., and SrinivasanV. (1976), “A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health-Care Facilities,”Operations Research, 24, 991–1025.
25.
PessemierEdgar A., and BurgerPhilip, TeachRichard, and TigertDouglas (1971), “Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict Consumer Brand Purchases,”Management Science, 17(February), 371–85.
26.
ScottJerome E., and WrightPeter (1976), “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 13(August), 211–24.
27.
SegalMadhav N. (1982), “Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19(February), 139–43.
28.
WittinkDick R., and MontgomeryDavid T. (1979), “Predictive Validity of Trade-off Analysis for Alternative Segmentation Schemes,”Proceedings, American Marketing Association, 68–73.
