Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
John Robinson, H. Schuman, S. Presser (1982)
Questions and answers in attitude surveys
M. Safizadeh (1989)
The Internal Validity of the Trade-Off Method of Conjoint AnalysisDecision Sciences, 20
D. Wittink, Philippe Cattin (1981)
Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monté Carlo StudyJournal of Marketing Research, 18
A. Jain, F. Acito, N. Malhotra, V. Mahajan (1979)
A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference ModelsJournal of Marketing Research, 16
P. Green, V. Srinivasan (1978)
Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and OutlookJournal of Consumer Research, 5
R. Teas (1987)
Magnitude scaling of the dependent variable in decompositional multiattribute preference modelsJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15
J. Elashoff, F. Kerlinger, E. Pedhazur (1974)
Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70
J. Davidson (1973)
Forecasting Traffic on STOLJournal of the Operational Research Society, 24
B. Calder, L. Phillips, Alice Tybout (1981)
Designing Research for ApplicationJournal of Consumer Research, 8
Franklin. Acito (1979)
“An Investigation of the Reliabiligy of Conjoint Measurement for Various Orthogonal Designs.” InProceedings
Y. Wind, P. Green, Patrick Robinson (1968)
The Determinants of Vendor Selection: The Evaluation Function ApproachJournal of Purchasing, 4
T. Leigh, D. MacKay, John Summers (1984)
Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A ComparisonJournal of Marketing Research, 21
R. Teas (1985)
An analysis of the temporal stability and structural reliability of metric conjoint analysis proceduresJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13
Richard M. Johnson (1981)
Problems in Applying Conjoint Analysis
N. Malhotra (1982)
Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint AnalysisJournal of Marketing Research, 19
R. Driver, J. Hatfield, R. Huseman (1981)
A proposed method for analyzing employee benefit preferences: conjoint measurement.Human resource management, 20 1
W. L. Dellva R. Kenneth Teas (1985)
Conjoint Measurement of Consumers’ Preferences for Multiattribute Financial ServicesJournal of Bank Research, 16
P. Green, S. Goldberg, M. Montemayor (1981)
A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint AnalysisJournal of Marketing, 45
N. Klein (1987)
Assessing Unacceptable Attribute Levels in Conjoint AnalysisACR North American Advances
J. Mccullough, R. Best (1979)
Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural ReliabilityJournal of Marketing Research, 16
Richard M. Johnson (1987)
“Adaptive Conjoint Analysis.” InProceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping
R. Kenneth Teas (1987)
Magnitude Scaling of the Dependent Variable in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference ModelsJournal of the Acadamy of Marketing Science, 15
Richard Johnson (1974)
Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer ValuesJournal of Marketing Research, 11
R. Johnson (1975)
A simple method for pairwise monotone regressionPsychometrika, 40
D. Reibstein, J. Bateson, William Boulding (1988)
Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical FindingsMarketing Science, 7
M. Segal (1982)
Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection ProceduresJournal of Marketing Research, 19
Michael Rosko, William McKenna (1983)
Modeling consumer choices of health plans: a comparison of two techniques.Social science & medicine, 17 7
W. Moore (1980)
Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical ComparisonJournal of Marketing Research, 17
J. Scott, Peter Wright (1976)
Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural ConsiderationsJournal of Marketing Research, 13
J. D. Davidson (1973)
Forecasting Traffic on STOLOperational Research Quarterly, 24
Phillipe Cattin Dick R. Wittink (1981)
Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo StudyJournal of Marketing Research, 18
Yoram Wind (1973)
Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing
Arun K. Jain (1980)
“Stability and Reliability of Part-Worth Utility in Conjoint Analysis: A Longitudinal Investigation.” Working Paper 80/05
Peter Wright, Mary Kriewall (1980)
State-of-mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice.Journal of Marketing Research, 17
M. Walle Veen Oppedijk (1977)
An Investigation of Alternative Methods of Applying the Trade-Off ModelJournal of the Market Research Society, 19
Patrick J. Robinson (1980)
Applications of Conjoint Analysis to Pricing Problems
S. Addelman (1962)
Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial ExperimentsTechnometrics, 4
T. Leigh, D. MacKay, John Summers (1981)
On Alternative Experimental Methods For Conjoint AnalysisACR North American Advances
Ruth N. Bolton (1985)
Attribute Presentation Order Bias and Nonstationarity in Full Profile Conjoint Analysis Tasks
B. Parker, V. Srinivasan (1976)
A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health-Care FacilitiesOper. Res., 24
Dick R. Wittink (1980)
The Predictive Validity of Conjoint Analysis for Alternative Aggregation Schemes
Robert S. Ogle (1986)
Conjoint Models Cannot Live on Trade-Offs AloneMarketing News, 20
D. Wittink, Philippe Cattin (1989)
Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An UpdateJournal of Marketing, 53
P. Green, V. Rao (1971)
Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental DataJournal of Marketing Research, 8
D. Wittink, L. Krishnamurthi, Julia Nutter (1982)
Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across AttributesJournal of Consumer Research, 8
Franklin Acito (1977)
An Investigation of Some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement
I. Akaah, P. Korgaonkar (1983)
An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint ModelsJournal of Marketing Research, 20
P. Green, A. Krieger, Pradeep Bansal (1988)
Completely Unacceptable Levels in Conjoint Analysis: A Cautionary NoteJournal of Marketing Research, 25
V. Srinivasan (1988)
A CONJUNCTIVE-COMPENSATORY APPROACH TO THE SELF-EXPLICATION OF MULTIATTRIBUTED PREFERENCES*Decision Sciences, 19
Imran Currim, C. Weinberg, D. Wittink (1981)
Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts SeriesJournal of Consumer Research, 8
Philippe Cattin, Marc Weinberger (1980)
Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute UtilitiesACR North American Advances
Abstract An experiment was conducted to assess the convergent validity of a recently proposed conjunctive-compensatory self-explicated approach to conjoint measurement. A comparison of the self-explicated approach with the full profile conjoint method demonstrated that the self-explicated approach (1) was inconsistent in the identification of acceptable and unacceptable stimuli, and (2) didnot exhibit a high degree of convergent validity with respect to partworth and importance estimates when compared with the full profile approach. These findings identify potential problems with the conjunctive-compensatory self-explicated approach to conjoint measurement.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 1, 1992
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.