Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2011

Bayesian Approach for Identifying Efficient Stated-Choice Survey Designs with Reduced Prior Information

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a stated-choice survey design in which reduced information is available about the values of the parameters. The main objective of the survey is to develop discrete choice models to analyze the carrier selection process by shippers. The only information available is the expected sign of the parameter in the utility function. Therefore, the use of a Bayesian approach is necessary in analyzing the efficiency of potential survey designs. The measure of efficiency adopted is the 95th percentile value of the D-error, the determinant of the asymptotic variance–covariance matrix, obtained via Monte Carlo simulation. This measure would maximize the expected gain of information with the experiment. In the survey, the respondents (shippers) will be asked to provide the main carrier's attributes used in the selection process. On the basis of the answers, the survey will be customized to each respondent (situation). In this paper, only the results of the design for situations in which shippers select continuous attributes are presented. An algorithm is developed in a statistical package to search and evaluate the efficiency of 1,000 randomly selected potential survey designs. The algorithm maintains the 10 most efficient designs to be evaluated and uses box plots to identify the most suitable design. The results show that the approach adopted improves the efficiency of the design substantially, which would result in more accurate models from the survey data.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Louviere J. J., Hensher D. A., and Swait J. D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
2. Atkinson A. C., Donev A. N., and Tobias R. D. Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2007.
3. Huber J., and Zwerina K. The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1996, pp. 307–317.
4. Bliemer M. C. J., Rose J. M., and Hess S. Approximation of Bayesian Efficiency in Experimental Choice Designs. Journal of Choice Modeling, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 98–127.
5. Bliemer M. C. J., Rose J. M., and Hensher D. Efficient Stated Choice Experiments for Estimating Nested Logit Models. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 43, 2009, pp. 19–35.
6. Street D. J., and Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J., 2007.
7. Sándor Z., and Wedel M. Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers’ Prior Beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. 430–444.
8. Kessels R., Goos P., and Varderbroek M. A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, 2006, pp. 409–419.
9. Roorda M. J., Cavalcante R., McCabe S., and Kwan H. A Conceptual Framework for Agent-Based Modelling of Logistics Services. Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 46, 2010, pp. 18–31.
10. Lambert D. M., Lewis W. C., and Stock J. R. How Shippers Select and Evaluate General Commodities LTL Motor Carriers. Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1993, pp. 131–143.
11. Crum M. R., and Allen B. J. A Longitudinal Assessment of Motor Carrier–Shipper Relationship Trends, 1990 vs. 1996. Transportation Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1997, pp. 5–17.
12. Murphy P. R., Daley J. M., and Hall P. K. Carrier Selection: Do Shipper and Carrier Agree, or Not? Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1997, pp. 67–72.
13. Crosby L., and LeMay S. A. Empirical Determination of Shipper Requirements for Motor Carrier Services: SERVQUAL, Direct Questioning, and Policy Capturing Methods. Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1998, pp. 139–153.
14. Kent J. L., Parker R. S., and Luke R. H. An Empirical Examination of Shipper Perceptions of Service-Selection Attributes in Five Truck-load Industry Segments. Transportation Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2001, pp. 27–36.
15. Premeaux S. R. Motor Carrier Selection Criteria: Perceptual Differences Between Shippers and Motor Carriers. Transportation Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2002, pp. 28–38.
16. Pearmain D., and Kroes E. Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice. Steer Davies Gleave Ltd., Leeds, Richmond, United Kingdom, 1990.
17. MVA Consultancy. Time Savings: Research into the Value of Time. In Cost Benefit Analysis, 2nd ed. (Layard R., and Glaister S., eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1994, pp. 235–271.
18. Chaloner K., and Verdinelli I. Bayesian Experimental Design: A Review. Statistical Science, Vol. 10, 1995, pp. 273–304.
19. Lindley D. V. On the Measure of Information Provided by an Experiment. Annals of Statistics, Vol. 27, 1956, pp. 986–1005.
20. Train K. Discrete Choice Models with Simulation, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2009.
21. Ben-Akiva M., and Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 1985.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2011
Issue published: January 2011

Rights and permissions

© 2011 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Rinaldo Cavalcante
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 Saint George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada.
Matthew J. Roorda
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 Saint George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 14

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 2

  1. Ocean Container Carrier Selection Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Method: Customers...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Decoding pedestrian and automated vehicle interactions using immersive...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub