Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A cross validation test of four models for quantifying multiattribute preferences

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the internal predictive validity of four multiattribute preference models: (a) a self-explicated model with equal importance weights; (b) a self-explicated model with unequal weights; (c) Sawtooth Software's Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA); and (d) full profile conjoint analysis. We also discuss the problem of choosing criterion measures for comparing cross validations across models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, Manoj K. (1988a). “An Empirical Comparison of Traditional Conjoint and Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Working Paper No. 88-140, School of Management, SUNY Binghamton.

  • Agarwal, Manoj K. (1988b). “A Monte Carlo Study Investigating Configuration Recovery in Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,”1988 Marketing Educators' Conference Proceedings 292–296. Chicago: American Marketing Association, Series 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, Manoj K., and Paul E. Green. (1991). “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Versus Self-Explicated Models: Some Empirical Results,”International Journal of Research in Marketing 8, 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., Michel Wedel, Marco Vriens, and Venkatram Ramaswamy. (1992). “Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Letters 3 (July), 273–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., Richard L. Oliver, and Arvind Rangaswamy. (1989). “A Simulated Annealing Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression,”Psychometrika 54, 707–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner, Carl T., and P. J. Platz. (1986). “Computerized Versus Paper and Pencil Conjoint Methods: A Comparison Study,” Working Paper, National Analysts, Inc., Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. (1984). “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May), 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and Kristiaan Helsen. (1989). “Cross-Validation Assessment of Alternatives to Individual-Level Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study,”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 346–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., and Vithala R. Rao. (1971). “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (August), 355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, Michael R. (1985). “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (May), 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, Steven. (1988). “Software for Full Profile Conjoint Analysis,”Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel, Dick R. Wittink, John A. Fiedler, and Richard Miller. (1993). “The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research 30 (February), 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Richard M. (1987). “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,”Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, Wagner A. (1988). “A Least Squares Procedure for Benefit Segmentation for Conjoint Experiments,”Journal of Marketing Research 25 (May), 157–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, Kohsuk. (1987). “An Approach to Simultaneous Estimation and Segmentation in Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science 6, 66–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., and Gordon A. Wyner. (1989). “CASEMAP: Computer-Assisted Self-Explication of Multi-Attributed Preferences,” In W. Henry, M. Menasco, and H. Takada (eds.),New Product Development and Testing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, S. Sattah, and Paul Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review 95, 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and J. B. E. M. Steenkamp. (1991). “A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation,”Journal of Marketing Research 28, 385–396.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing Dept., #1400 The Wharton School, Univ. of PA, 19104-6371, Philadelphia, PA

    Paul E. Green

  2. Statistics Dept., #3000 The Wharton School, Univ. of PA, 19104-6371, Philadelphia, PA

    Abba M. Krieger

  3. School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton, P.O. Box 6000, 13902-6000, Bingham, NY

    Manoj K. Agarwal

Authors
  1. Paul E. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abba M. Krieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manoj K. Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Huntsman Center for Global Competition and Innovation and the Crosby/Foggitt Fellowship from the Sol C. Snider Entrepreneurial Center, both at the Wharton School.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M. & Agarwal, M.K. A cross validation test of four models for quantifying multiattribute preferences. Marketing Letters 4, 369–380 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994355

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994355

Keywords

Search

Navigation