Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHess, Stephane
dc.contributor.authorRose, John M.
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23
dc.date.available2018-11-23
dc.date.issued2008-04-01
dc.identifier.issnISSN 1832-570X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/19560
dc.description.abstractAnalysts are increasingly making use of pivot style Stated Choice (SC) data in the estimation of choice models. These datasets often contain a reference alternative whose attributes remain invariant across replications for the same respondent. This paper presents some evidence to suggest that the standard specification used for such data may not be appropriate. As such, our analysis shows differences not only in the specification of the observed part of utility between the reference alternative and hypothetical SC alternatives, but also suggests differences in the error terms.en_AU
dc.relation.ispartofseriesITLS-WP-08-09en_AU
dc.subjectStated choice; pivot designs; discrete choiceen_AU
dc.titleShould reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently?en_AU
dc.typeWorking Paperen_AU
dc.contributor.departmentITLSen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.