Best–worst scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products

By S. Jaeger, A. S. Jørgensen, M. Aaslyng, W. Bredie. 2008

144 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.

Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods (2008, methodology): “Previous research has found the best–worst scaling method to be easier to use than rating methods when using monadic presentation (Cohen, 2003; Jaeger et al., 2008).”
Applying best‐worst scaling to wine marketing (2009, background): “Consumers’ preferences for minced pork patties were studied by Jaeger et al. (2008)”
Models of best–worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles) (2012, background): “One approach would be to specify a latent class sequential best-worst model, in a manner similar to Kamakura and Russell (1989), who studied best choices, and Flynn et al.”
Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct ranking and best–worst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance (2013, methodology): “The importance weighting of attribute k over the full set of attributes was obtained on a common ratio scale following the procedure outlined in Lagerkvist et al. (2012), from which ranks were obtained.”
Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory (2011, methodology): “Just like any other forced-choice task, the best-worst scaling procedure has been shown to provide better discrimination power compared to direct scaling methods (Hein, Jaeger, Carr, & Delahunty, 2008; Jaeger et al., 2008), and to be easy to use by consumers because it simply requires them to choose”