A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption (2014, methodology): “The method is attractive as it forces respondents to discriminate among reasons, rather than to rate each one-at-a-time, thereby revealing their relative importance (Louviere and Islam, 2008).”
Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice (2008, background): “5) Birnbaum and Stegner attempted to relate differences in weights to estimates of weights directly elicited from rating tasks; [ajm: however, ratings are subject to several criticisms (e.g., see Louviere and Islam 2008).]”