Abstract
In this chapter, the survey methods needed to elicit the customer preference data to estimate a DCA or OL model, are introduced. The survey methods are based upon established Design of Experiments methodologies, but adapted for the specific needs of stated preference experiments.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- A:
-
Customer-desired product attributes
- α:
-
Pairwise correlation coefficient for multinomial covariance matrix
- β :
-
Choice model coefficient in customer’s utility function
- B :
-
Number of configurations given to a single respondent
- D n :
-
Derivative of π i
- det:
-
Matrix determinant
- E :
-
Engineering Attributes
- ε in :
-
Random unobservable part of the utility of configuration i for respondent n
- f(x):
-
Extended experiment design point, including intercept/cutpoints, interaction, and higher ordered terms than x
- f :
-
PDF of the logistic distribution
- F :
-
CDF of the logistic distribution
- F :
-
Extended design matrix
- G :
-
Candidate set of design points
- GLS:
-
Generalized least squares (Regression)
- i :
-
A configuration
- inv:
-
Matrix inverse
- k, k p :
-
Ordered logit cutpoints
- M :
-
Number of configurations in a complete experimental design
- M :
-
Fisher information matrix of an experimental design
- n :
-
A block or respondent
- OLS:
-
Ordinary least squares (Regression)
- P :
-
Number of ordered ratings categories
- P :
-
Working correlation matrix
- \( \pi_{inp} \) :
-
Probability of rating p for respondent n and configuration i
- R :
-
Ratings
- ρ :
-
Pairwise ratings correlation coefficient
- ρ 2 :
-
Model fit statistic for ordered logit/probit model
- σ u :
-
Variance at the respondent level
- σ ε :
-
Variance at the observation level
- S :
-
Human attributes
- T :
-
Number of tries conducted in the algorithm
- u in :
-
Utility of configuration i for respondent n in the ordered logit/probit equation
- V :
-
Asymptotic variance-covariance matrix
- x :
-
Design point for product and human factors. A sub-set of f(x)
- X :
-
Extended design matrix, composed of f(x)
References
Atkinson AC, Donev AN (1992) Optimum experimental designs. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Box G, Bisgaard S, Fung C (1988) An explanation and critique of taguchi’’ contributions to quality engineering. Qual Reliab Eng Intern 4(2):123–131
Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG (2005) Statistics for experimenters: design, innovation, and discovery. Wiley, New York
Cox EP III (1980) The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. J. Mark. Res. 17(4):407–422
Fisher RA (1935) The design of experiments, 1st edn. Oliver & Boyd, Oxford
Goos P (2002) The optimal design of blocked and split-plot experiments. Springer-Verlag, New York
Goos P, Vandebroek M (2004) Outperforming completely randomized designs. J Qual Technol 36(1):12–26
Green PE, Krieger AM, Agarwal MK (1991) Adaptive conjoint analysis: some caveats and suggestions. J. Mark. Res. 28(2):215–222
Green PE, Rao VR (1970) Rating scales and information recovery. How many scales and response categories to use? J Mark 34(3):33–39
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge
Hines R (1997) Analysis of clustered polytomous data using generalized estimating equations and working covariance structures. Biometrics 53(4):1552–1556
Hines R (1998) Comparison of two covariance structures in the analysis of clustered polytomous data using generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 54(1):312–316
Hoyle C, Chen W, Ankenman B, Wang N (2009) Optimal experimental design of human appraisals for modeling consumer preferences in engineering design. J. Mech. Des. 131(7):98–107
Johnson VE, Albert JH (1999) Ordinal data modeling. Springer, New York
Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2006) A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. J. Mark. Res. 43(3):409–419
Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2008) Optimal designs for rating-based conjoint experiments. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 52(5):2369–2387
Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009) An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. J Bus Econ Stat 27(2):279–291
Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Mark. Res. 31(4):545–557
Liang K, Zeger SL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73(1):13–22
Louviere JJ (2006) What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 34(1):173–188
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, New York
Louviere JJ, Islam T, Wasi N, Street D, Burgess L (2008) Designing discrete choice experiments: do optimal designs come at a price? J Consum Res: An Interdiscip Q 35(2):360–375
Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL (2003) Statistical design and analysis of experiments: with applications to engineering and science. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New York
McCullagh P (1980) Regression models for ordinal data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 42(2):109–142
McKelvey RD, Zavoina W (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4(1):103–120
Montgomery DC (2005) Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product in optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY
Phadke MS (1995) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Sandor Z, Wedel M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 38(4):430–444
Society of Automotive Engineers Society of Automotive Engineers (2002) Surface vehicle recommended practice-motor vehicle dimensions. SAE J1100. Warrendale, Pennsylvania
Steckel JH, DeSarbo WS, Mahajan V (1991) On the creation of acceptable conjoint analysis experimental designs. Decis Sci 22(2):435–442
Stevens SS (1986) Psychophysics: introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
Street DJ, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken
Taguchi G (1988) Introduction to quality engineering: designing quality into products and processes. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo
Tamhane AC, Dunlop DD (2000) Statistics and data analysis: from elementary to intermediate. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wang N, Kiridena V, Gomez-Levi G, Wan J (2006) Design and verification of a new computer controlled seating buck. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 ASME IDETC/CIE, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 10−13
Williamson JM, Kim K, Lipsitz SR (1995) Analyzing bivariate ordinal data using a global odds ratio. J Am Stat Assoc 90(432):1432–1437
Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009) Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Marke Sci 28(1):122–135
Zorn CJW (2001) Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: a review with applications. Am J Political Sci 45(2):470–490
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Simplified Method of Expressing M
This appendix provides a method for expressing the information matrix, M, and estimating the prediction variance of a given extended design point, f(x), for use in the optimization algorithm. The ordinal data GLM information matrix of Eq. (6.9) can be written in analogous fashion to the GLS formulation of Eq. (6.7) [14]. An H n matrix is defined as a matrix of derivatives of the logistic CDF as \( {\mathbf{H}}_{n} = {\text{diag}}\left( {f_{n1} ,f_{n2} , \ldots f_{{n\left( {P - 1} \right)}} } \right) \). The extended design point f(x in ) for a given respondent and given configuration is defined as:
A C n matrix defined as:
With C n , H n and f(x) defined, the information matrix can be written as [14]:
where \( {\mathbf{W}}_{n}^{ - 1} = {\mathbf{H}}_{n} {\mathbf{C^{\prime}}}_{n} {\mathbf{V}}_{n}^{ - 1} {\mathbf{C}}_{n} {\mathbf{H}}_{n} \), and F is the extended design matrix composed of the f(x).
Appendix B: Example of Experimental Configuration Blocks
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, W., Hoyle, C., Wassenaar, H.J. (2013). Design of Experiments for Eliciting Customer Preferences. In: Decision-Based Design. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4036-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4036-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4035-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4036-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)