Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 322–338 | Cite as

A-efficient discrete choice designs for attributes with unequal numbers of levels

  • Fangfang Sun
  • Angela Dean
Article

Abstract

Sun and Dean proposed an approach for finding A-optimal and A-efficient discrete choice designs without a large computational effort, for estimating orthonormal contrasts, and for both balanced and unbalanced profile utilities. Their method was based on the “contribution” made by each choice set to the contrasts being estimated, and was illustrated for the setting of two-level attributes and orthonormal main effect and interaction contrasts. In this article, the use of the Sun and Dean methodology is extended to encompass pairwise comparisons. The methodology is illustrated for the construction of A-efficient designs for attributes having different numbers of levels and where contrasts of interest are either orthonormal factorial contrasts or pairwise comparisons in the attribute levels. When the designs are large, issues involved with finding smaller subdesigns are discussed briefly.

Keywords

A-optimal asymmetric attributes multinomial logit model pairwise comparisons unbalanced utilities 

AMS Subject Classification

62K05 62K10 62K15 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burgess, L., and D. J. Street. 2005. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 134 (1):288–301.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush, S., L. Burgess, and D. Street. 2010. Optimal designs for stated choice experiments that incorporate ties. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (7):1712–1718.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crabbe, M., B. Jones, and M. Vandebroek. 2013. Comparing two-stage segmentation methods for choice data with a one-stage latent class choice analysis. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 42 (5):1188–1212.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goos, P., B. Vermeulen, and M. Vandebroek. 2010. D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (4):851–861.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Graßhoff, U., and R. Schwabe. 2008. Optimal design for the Bradley–Terry paired comparison model. Statistical Methods and Applications 17 (3):275–289.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Großmann, H., and R. Schwabe. 2015. Design for discrete choice experiments. In Handbook of design and analysis of experiments, ed. A. M. Dean, M. D. Morris, J. Stufken, and D. Bingham, 787–832. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33 (3):307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lancsar, E., J. Louviere, C. Donaldson, G. Currie, and L. Burgess. 2013. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application. Social Science & Medicine 76:74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu, Q., A. M. Dean, D. Bakken, and G. Allenby. 2009. Efficient experimental designs for hyperparameter estimation: Studying the level effect in conjoint analysis. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 7:69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ruan, S., S. MacEachern, T. Otter, and A. Dean. 2008. The dependent poisson race model and modeling dependence in conjoint choice experiments. Psychometrika 73 (2):261–88.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Singh, R., F.-S. Chai, and A. Das. 2015. Optimal two-level choice designs for any number of choice sets. Biometrika 102 (4):967–973.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Street, D., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Street, D. J., L. Burgess, and J. J. Louviere. 2005. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (4):459–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sun, F. 2012. On A-optimal designs for discrete choice experiments and sensitivity analysis for computer experiments. PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  15. Sun, F., and A. Dean. 2016. A-optimal and A-efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 170:144–57.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing, 20 Middlefield Ct, Greensboro, NC 27455 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Science and EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations