采用可传递性违规检测算法评估最佳最差缩放设计

Q open Pub Date : 2023-06-28 DOI:10.1093/qopen/qoad019
C. Bir, N. Widmar, N. Slipchenko, Addison Polcyn, Christopher A Wolf
{"title":"采用可传递性违规检测算法评估最佳最差缩放设计","authors":"C. Bir, N. Widmar, N. Slipchenko, Addison Polcyn, Christopher A Wolf","doi":"10.1093/qopen/qoad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n When choosing a partial factorial design for best-worst scaling or other discrete choice experiment researchers are faced with design size choices. This work investigates differences between two case 1 (object) best-worst scaling choice experiment designs that varied in choice set size and number of questions. Using a random parameters logit model, preference shares were determined and statistically compared between models. The number of transitivity violations occurring between the experimental designs were analyzed employing a newly developed directed graph algorithm. The relative importance consumers placed on dairy milk attributes differed between the designs studied. The design presenting fewer attributes per choice set forced novel tradeoffs more often and yielded no increase in transitivity violations. In general, if one seeks to establish rank among variables and force tradeoffs, smaller designs should be considered.","PeriodicalId":87350,"journal":{"name":"Q open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Employing a transitivity violation detection algorithm to assess best-worst scaling designs\",\"authors\":\"C. Bir, N. Widmar, N. Slipchenko, Addison Polcyn, Christopher A Wolf\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/qopen/qoad019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n When choosing a partial factorial design for best-worst scaling or other discrete choice experiment researchers are faced with design size choices. This work investigates differences between two case 1 (object) best-worst scaling choice experiment designs that varied in choice set size and number of questions. Using a random parameters logit model, preference shares were determined and statistically compared between models. The number of transitivity violations occurring between the experimental designs were analyzed employing a newly developed directed graph algorithm. The relative importance consumers placed on dairy milk attributes differed between the designs studied. The design presenting fewer attributes per choice set forced novel tradeoffs more often and yielded no increase in transitivity violations. In general, if one seeks to establish rank among variables and force tradeoffs, smaller designs should be considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Q open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Q open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoad019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Q open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoad019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当选择最佳-最差比例的部分析因设计或其他离散选择时,实验研究人员面临设计尺寸的选择。这项工作调查了两种情况1(对象)最佳-最差比例选择实验设计之间的差异,这两种设计在选择集大小和问题数量方面都有所不同。使用随机参数logit模型,确定偏好份额,并在模型之间进行统计比较。使用新开发的有向图算法分析了实验设计之间发生的传递性违规的数量。消费者对乳制品属性的相对重视程度在所研究的设计中有所不同。每个选择集呈现较少属性的设计更频繁地强制进行新的权衡,并且不会增加传递性违规。一般来说,如果试图在变量之间建立排名并进行权衡,则应考虑较小的设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Employing a transitivity violation detection algorithm to assess best-worst scaling designs
When choosing a partial factorial design for best-worst scaling or other discrete choice experiment researchers are faced with design size choices. This work investigates differences between two case 1 (object) best-worst scaling choice experiment designs that varied in choice set size and number of questions. Using a random parameters logit model, preference shares were determined and statistically compared between models. The number of transitivity violations occurring between the experimental designs were analyzed employing a newly developed directed graph algorithm. The relative importance consumers placed on dairy milk attributes differed between the designs studied. The design presenting fewer attributes per choice set forced novel tradeoffs more often and yielded no increase in transitivity violations. In general, if one seeks to establish rank among variables and force tradeoffs, smaller designs should be considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Can Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles? Socioeconomic impacts of land restoration in agriculture: a systematic review Unpacking Stakeholder Perceptions on Challenges for Increasing Adoption of Solar- Powered Irrigation Systems in India: A Q Methodology Study Are lessons being learnt from the replication crisis or will the revolution devour its children? Open Q science from the editor's perspective Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries: a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1