You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison
Thomas W. Leigh, David B. MacKay and John O. Summers
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. 21, No. 4 (Nov., 1984), pp. 456-462
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151471
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Marketing, Modeling, Calculators, Raffles, Factorials, Consumer research, Statistical significance, Data validity, Correlations, Statistical estimation
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Though the use of conjoint analysis has increased substantially in recent years, relatively little empirical evidence has been published on how its reliability and validity compares with that of alternative methodological approaches. The authors report the results of a study designed to compare the test-retest reliability and predictive validity of several alternative conjoint analysis techniques with that of self-explicated weights under the condition of all attributes being dichotomous. The findings fail to demonstrate greater reliability and validity for the conjoint analysis techniques considered.
Journal of Marketing Research © 1984 American Marketing Association