The conjoint approach to measurement and analysis is demonstrated in this article through a
test of an evaluation utilizationprocess-model that includes two endogenous variables (predicted
participation and predicted instrumental utilization). Conjoint measurement involves having
respondents rate attribute profiles that are analogous to concepts based on cells in a factorial
analysis of variance. Such multidimensional ratings result in ecologically valid measurements
because respondents examine and react to wholes, rather than to single unidimensional items
as in traditional survey research. Statistically, conjoint analysis is a "decompositional" technique in which respondents' overall reactions to profiles (hypothetical situations) are decomposed to determine how much importance is given to attributes (variables used in the profiles)
and to levels of the attributes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akaah, I.P.1991. Predictive performance of self-explicated, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models under alternative data collection modes . Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science19:309-14.
2.
Aldenderfer, M.S., and R.K. Blashfield .1984. Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Boyer, J.F., and L.I. Langbein.1991. Factors influencing the use of health evaluation research in Congress. Evaluation Review15:507-32.
4.
Braskamp, L.A., R.D. Brown, and D.L. Newman.1982. Studying evaluation utilization through simulations. Evaluation Review6:114-26.
5.
Byrk, A. S., ed. 1983. Stakeholder-based evaluation. New directions in program evaluation. No. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Cousins, J.B., and L.M. Earl.1992. The case for participatory evaluation . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis14(4): 397-418.
7.
Cousins, J.B., and K.A. Leithwood.1986. Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research56:331-64.
8.
—. 1993. Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvement. Knowledge : Creation, Diffusion, Utilization14(3): 305-33.
9.
Dibella, A.1990. The research manager's role in encouraging evaluation use. Evaluation Practice11(2): 115-19.
10.
Green, P.E., and V.R. Rao.1971. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research8:355-63.
11.
Green, P.E., and V. Srinivasan.1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research5:103-23.
12.
—. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing4:3-19.
13.
Greene, J.C.1987. Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort?Evaluation and Program Planning10:379-94.
14.
—. 1988. Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation . Evaluation Review12:91-116.
15.
Gunst, R.F., and R.L. Manson.1991. How to construct fractional factorial experiments. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
16.
Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black.1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings . New York: Macmillan.
17.
Huberman, M.1987. Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization . Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utilization8:586-611.
18.
—. 1990. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal27:363-91.
19.
Johnson, K.W.1980. Stimulating evaluation use by integrating academia and practice. Knowledge : Creation, diffusion, utilization2:237-62.
20.
Johnson, R.M.1974. Trade-off analysis of consumer values. Journal of Marketing Research11:121-7.
21.
Leviton, L.C., and E.F. Hughes.1981. Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review5:497-519.
Luce, R.D., and J.W. Tukey.1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology1:1-27.
24.
Miller, K., and P. Monge.1986. Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal29:727-53.
25.
Patton, M.Q.1986. Utilization-focused evaluation. 2d ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
—. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Reardon, G., and D.S. Pathak.1990. Segmenting the antihistamine market: An investigation of consumer preferences. Journal of Health Care Marketing10:22-33.
28.
Rosenthal, R., and R.L. Rosnow.1991. Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill .
29.
SAS Institute Inc.1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6. Cary, NC: Author.
30.
Schensul, J.J., and S.L. Schensul.1992. Collaborative research: Methods of inquiry for social change. In The handbook of qualitative research in education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, and J. Preissle, 161-200. New York: Academic Press.
31.
Weiss, C.H.1983. Ideology, interest, and information: The basis of policy decisions. In Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis , edited by D. Callahan and B. Jennings, 213-45. New York: Plenum.
32.
Weiss, C.H., and M.J. Bucuvalas.1980. Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers' frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review45:302-13.
33.
Wittink, D.R., and P. Cattin.1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing53:91-6.
