, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 1021–1041 | Cite as

Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments

  • John M. RoseEmail author
  • Michiel C. J. Bliemer


Stated choice (SC) experiments represent the dominant data paradigm in the study of behavioral responses of individuals, households as well as other organizations, yet in the past little has been known about the sample size requirements for models estimated from such data. Traditional orthogonal designs and existing sampling theories does not adequately address the issue and hence researchers have had to resort to simple rules of thumb or ignore the issue and collect samples of arbitrary size, hoping that the sample is sufficiently large enough to produce reliable parameter estimates, or are forced to make assumptions about the data that are unlikely to hold in practice. In this paper, we demonstrate how a recently proposed sample size computation can be used to generate so-called S-efficient designs using prior parameter values to estimate panel mixed multinomial logit models. Sample size requirements for such designs in SC studies are investigated. In a numerical case study is shown that a D-efficient and even more an S-efficient design require a (much) smaller sample size than a random orthogonal design in order to estimate all parameters at the level of statistical significance. Furthermore, it is shown that wide level range has a significant positive influence on the efficiency of the design and therefore on the reliability of the parameter estimates.


Stated choice experiments D-optimality D-error Sample size S-error Simple random sampling Mixed Multinomial Logit model 


  1. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  2. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose J.M.,: Efficiency and Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Studies. Working paper ITLS-WP-05-08, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  3. Bliemer , M.C.J, Rose J.M.,: Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice studies. Presented at the 88th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington DC (2009)Google Scholar
  4. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A.: Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models. Transp. Res. Part B 43(1), 19–35 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Hess, S.: Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. J. Choice Model. 1(1), 98–127 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M.: Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: an empirical study in air travel choice. Transp. Res. Part A. 45(1), 63–79 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M.: Construction of Experimental Designs for Mixed Logit Models Allowing for Correlation Across Choice Observations. Transp. Res. Part B. 46(3), 720–734 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunch, D.S., Louviere, J.J., Anderson, D.: A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis with Generic-Attribute Multinomial Logit Models, Working Paper. Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis (1996)Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson, F., Peter Martinsson, P.: Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 12(4), 281–294 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrod, G.D., Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G.: Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: a choice experiment approach. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 36(2), 211–232 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Hensher, D.A., Prioni, P.: A service quality index for area-wide contract performance assessment. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 36(1), 93–114 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 33, 307–317 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, R., Orme, B. (2003) Getting the most from CBC, Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software, SequimGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanninen, B.J.: Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Mark. Res. 39, 214–217 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kessels, R., Bradley, B., Goos, P., Vandebroek, M.: An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 27(2), 279–291 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manski, C.F., McFadden, D.: Alternative Estimators and Sample Designs for Discrete Choice Analysis. In: Manski, C.F., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, pp. 2–50. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  19. McFadden, D.: Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In: Griliches, Z., Intriligator, M.D. (eds.) Handbook of econometrics II, pp. 1395–1457. Elseviere Science, Amsterdam (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics, pp. 105–142. Academic Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  21. ChoiceMetrics (2012) Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide, Australia, Accessed 14 March 2012
  22. Orme, B. (1998) Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper, SequimGoogle Scholar
  23. Orme, B. (2010) Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper, SequimGoogle Scholar
  24. Quan, W., Rose, J.M., Collins, A.T., Bliemer, M.C.J.: A comparison of Algorithms for Generating Efficient Choice Experiments, Working Paper ITLS-WP-11-19. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney, Sydney (2011)Google Scholar
  25. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J.: Sample Optimality in the Design of Stated Choice Experiments, Working paper ITLS-WP-05-13. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The Univesrity of Sydney, Sydney (2005a)Google Scholar
  26. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J.: Constructing Efficient Choice Experiments, Working Paper, ITLS-WP-05-07. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney, Sydney (2005b)Google Scholar
  27. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J., Hensher, D.A., Collins, A.T.: Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 42(4), 396–406 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sándor, Z., Wedel, M.: Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 38, 430–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sándor, Z., Wedel, M.: Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science 21(4), 455–476 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu, J., Goos, P.P., Vandebroek, M.: Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Marketing Science 28, 122–135 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney, The University of Sydney Business SchoolSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations