Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context

摘要

This study assesses the comparability of discrete choice experiment (DCE), ranking conjoint analysis (RCA) and multiprofile best-worst scaling (BWS) in a nonhypothetical context in terms of estimated partworths, willingness to pay (WTP), response consistency and external validity. Overall, the results suggest that: (i) the conjoint analysis formats that were used in this study provide similar estimated WTP, but different estimated partworths and computed external validity; (ii) the inclusion of the full ranking information in the estimation of the parameters of interest affects the estimated partworths, but not the estimated WTP; and (iii) it is more appropriate to use multiprofile BWS over DCE and RCA because it has better predictive power of consumers' preferences and provides estimated WTP comparable to those obtained in the others conjoint analysis formats. The BWS' cognitive process could be considered clearness for participants implying significant increment of its predictive power.