Author:
Harrison R. Wes,Gillespie Jeffrey,Fields Deacue
Abstract
Of twenty-three agricultural economics conjoint analyses conducted between 1990 and 2001, seventeen used interval-rating scales, with estimation procedures varying widely. This study tests cardinality assumptions in conjoint analysis when interval-rating scales are used, and tests whether the ordered probit or two-limit tobit model is the most valid. Results indicate that cardinality assumptions are invalid, but estimates of the underlying utility scale for the two models do not differ. Thus, while the ordered probit model is theoretically more appealing, the two-limit tobit model may be more useful in practice, especially in cases with limited degrees of freedom, such as with individual-level conjoint models.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Agronomy and Crop Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Opinions of professional buyers toward a new, alternative red meat: Ostrich
2. Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: Processors' selection of supply channels
3. Firm-level Intermediate Demand for Pacific Whiting Products: A Multi-attribute, Multi-sector Analysis
4. We should note that cardinal information does not solve all the problems associated with interpersonal comparison of utility. Even if an individual's interval scale contains cardinal information, the meaning of the scale values may differ from one individual to another.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献