000010238 001__ 10238
000010238 005__ 20180122193945.0
000010238 037__ $$a1203-2016-95271
000010238 037__ $$a1203-2016-96013
000010238 041__ $$aen
000010238 245__ $$aAnalysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis
000010238 260__ $$c2005-10
000010238 269__ $$a2005-10
000010238 300__ $$a15
000010238 336__ $$aJournal Article
000010238 446__ $$aEnglish
000010238 520__ $$aOf 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.
000010238 650__ $$aResearch Methods/ Statistical Methods
000010238 6531_ $$aordered probit
000010238 6531_ $$atwo-limit probit
000010238 6531_ $$aconjoint analysis
000010238 6531_ $$acardinality
000010238 700__ $$aHarrison, R. Wes
000010238 700__ $$aGillespie, Jeffrey M.
000010238 700__ $$aFields, Deacue
000010238 773__ $$dOctober 2005$$jVolume 34$$kNumber 2$$o252$$q238$$tAgricultural and Resource Economics Review
000010238 8564_ $$s941301$$uhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10238/files/34020238.pdf
000010238 887__ $$ahttp://purl.umn.edu/10238
000010238 909CO $$ooai:ageconsearch.umn.edu:10238$$pGLOBAL_SET
000010238 912__ $$nMade available in DSpace on 2007-06-27T18:50:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
34020238.pdf: 941301 bytes, checksum: 9d0b12fce5c04290d54437a45fe2f33b (MD5)
  Previous issue date: 2005-10
000010238 982__ $$gAgricultural and Resource Economics Review>Volume 34, Number 2, October 2005
000010238 980__ $$a1203