Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 339–360 | Cite as

Minimum aberration designs for discrete choice experiments

  • Jessica JaynesEmail author
  • Hongquan Xu
  • Weng Kee Wong


A discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a survey method that gives insight into individual preferences for particular attributes. Traditionally, methods for constructing DCEs focus on identifying the individual effect of each attribute (a main effect). However, an interaction effect between two attributes (a two-factor interaction) better represents real-life trade-offs, and provides us a better understanding of subjects’ competing preferences. In practice it is often unknown which two-factor interactions are significant. To address the uncertainty, we propose the use of minimum aberration blocked designs to construct DCEs. Such designs maximize the number of models with estimable two-factor interactions in a DCE with two-level attributes. We further extend the minimum aberration criteria to DCEs with mixed-level attributes and develop some general theoretical results.


Aliasing blocked design estimation capacity fractional factorial design multinomial logit model orthogonal array 

AMS Subject Classification

62K15 62J15 62K10 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkinson, A., and A. Donev. 1992. Optimum experimental designs. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bliemer, M., and J. Rose. 2011. Experimental design influences on stated choice output: An empirical study in air travel choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45 (1):63–79.Google Scholar
  3. Bunch, D. S., J. J. Louviere, and D. Anderson. 1996. 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, California.Google Scholar
  4. Burgess, L., D. J. Street, and N. Wasi. 2011. Comparing designs for choice experiments: a case study. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice 5 (1):25–46.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess, L., S. A. Knox, D. J. Street, and R. Norman. 2015. Comparing designs constructed with and without priors for choice experiments: A case study. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice 9:330–60.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, S. 2014. Optimal designs for stated choice experiments generated from fractional factorial designs. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice 8 (2):367–81.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, N. A. 2004. Minimum G2-aberration properties of two-level foldover designs. Statistics Probability Letters 67:121–32.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, H., and C. S. Cheng. 1999. Theory of optimal blocking of 2nm designs. Annals of Statistics 27:1948–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng, C. S. 2014. Theory of factorial design: Single- and multi-stratum experiments. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, C. S., R. W. Mee, and O. Yee. 2008. Second order saturated orthogonal arrays of strength three. Statistica Sinica 18 (1):105–19.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, C. S., and R. Mukerjee. 2001. Blocked regular fractional factorial designs with maximum estimation capacity. Annals of Statistics 29:530–48.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng, C. S., D. M. Steinberg, and D. X. Sun. 1999. Minimum aberration and model robustness for two-level factorial designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 61:85–93.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, S. W., W. Li, and K. Q. Ye. 2004. Blocked nonregular two-level factorial designs. Technometrics 46 (3):269–79. Cheng, S. W., and C. F. J. Wu. 2002. Choice of optimal blocking schemes in two-level and three-level designs. Technometrics 44 (3):269–77.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dey, A., and R. Mukerjee. 1999. Fractional factorial plans. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fries, A., and W. G. Hunter. 1980. Minimum aberration 2k–p designs. Technometics 22:601–8.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerard, K., M. Shanahan, and J. Louviere. 2008. Using discrete choice modeling to investigate breast screening participation. In Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, ed. M. Ryan, K. Gerard, and M. Amaya-Amaya, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 117–137.Google Scholar
  17. Groemping, U., B. Amarov, and H. Xu. 2015. DoE.base: R package version 0.27-1. August 21.
  18. Groemping, U., and H. Xu. 2014. Generalized resolution for orthogonal arrays. Annals of Statistics 42:918–39.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossmann, H., and R. Schwabe. 2015. Design for discrete choice experiments. In Handbook of design and analysis of experiments, ed. A. Dean, M. Morris, J. Stufken, and D. Bingham, 787–826 Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedayat, A. S., N. J. A. Sloane, and J. Stufken. 1999. Orthogonal arrays: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaynes, J., W. K. Wong, and H. Xu. 2016. Using blocked fractional factorial designs to construct discrete choice experiments for healthcare studies. Statistics in Medicine 35:2543–60. doi:10.1002/sim.6882.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, F. R., E. Lancsar, D. Marshall, V. Kilambi, A. Muhlbacher, D. A. Regier, B. W. Bresnahan, B. Kanninen, and J. F. P. Bridges. 2013. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health 16:3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kessels, R., B. Jones, P. Goos, and M. Vandebroek. 2011. The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry 27:173–88.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhfeld, W., and R. Tobias. 2005. Large factorial designs for product engineering and market research applications. Technometrics 47:122–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancsar, E., and J. Louviere. 2008. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 26 (8):661–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, W., C. J. Nachtsheim, K. Wang, R. Reul, and M. Albrecht. 2013. Conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments for quality improvement. Journal of Quality Technology 45:74–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mukerjee, R., and C. F. J. Wu. 2006. A modern theory of factorial designs. New York, NY: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandor, Z., and M. Wedel. 2001. Conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 38:430–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sitter, R. R., J. Chen, and M. Feder. 1997. Fractional resolution and minimum aberration in blocked 2n–k designs. Technometrics 39 (4):382–90.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Street, D., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sun, D. X., C. F. J. Wu, and Y. Chen, 1997. Optimal blocking schemes for 2n and 2np designs. Technometrics 39 (3):298–307.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Viney, R., E. Savage, and J. Louviere. 2005. Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. Health Economics 14 (4):349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu, C. F. J., and M. Hamada. 2009. Experiments: Planning, analysis and optimization, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu, H. 2003. Minimum moment aberration for nonregular designs and supersaturated designs. Statistica Sinica 13:691–708.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu, H. 2006. Blocked regular fractional factorial designs with minimum aberration. Annals of Statistics 34 (5):2534–53.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu, H. 2015. Nonregular factorial and supersaturated designs. In Handbook of design and analysis of experiments, ed. A. Dean, M. Morris, J. Stufken, and D. Bingham, 339–70. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  37. Xu, H., and S. Lau. 2006. Minimum aberration blocking schemes for two- and three-level FFDs. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 136:4088–118.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu, H., and R. W. Mee. 2010. Minimum aberration blocking schemes for 128-run designs. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140:3213–29. Xu, H., and C. F. J. Wu. 2001. Generalized minimum aberration for asymmetrical fractional factorial designs. The Annals of Statistics 29 (4):1066–77.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu, H., F. K. H. Phoa, and W. K. Wong. 2009. Recent developments in nonregular fractional factorial designs. Statistics Surveys 3:18–46.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang, R., and D. Park. 2000. Optimal blocking of two-level fractional factorial designs. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 91:107–21.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations