Research Note—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs

References

• Addelman S. Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial plans. Technometrics (1962) 4(February):47–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N., Huber J. Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. J. Consumer Res. (2001) 28(September):273–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunch D. S., Louviere J. J., Anderson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: The case of generic attributes. (1994) . Working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California at Davis, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
• Chakravarti I. M. Fractional replication in asymmetrical factorial designs and partially balanced arrays. Sankhya (1956) 17:143–164Google Scholar
• Chaloner K., Verdinelli I. Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statist. Sci. (1995) 10(3):273–304Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook D. R., Nachtsheim C. J. A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D-optimal designs. Technometrics (1980) 22(August):315–324Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cui D., Curry D. Prediction in marketing using the support vector machine. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(4):595–615Link, Google Scholar
• Dykstra O. The augmentation of experimental data to maximize (X′X)−1. Technometrics (1971) 13(August):682–688Google Scholar
• Evgeniou T., Boussios C., Zacharia G. Generalized robust conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):415–429Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser J. R., Toubia O. The impact of utility balance and endogeneity in conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):498–507Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser J. R., Urban G. L. Value priority hypotheses for consumer budget plans. J. Consumer Res. (1986) 12(4):446–462Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(August):307–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Judge G. G., Griffiths W. E., Hill R. C., Lutkepohl H., Lee T. C.The Theory and Practice of Econometrics (1985) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Kanninen B. J. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(May):214–227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W. F.Marketing Research Methods in SAS (2005) (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) . Available at http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts722.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Kuhfeld W. F., Tobias R. D., Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing applications. J. Marketing Res. (1994) 31(4, November):545–557Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liechty J. C., Fong D. K. H., DeSarbo W. S. Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: Utility evolution in conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(2):285–293Link, Google Scholar
• Mitchell T. J. An algorithm for the construction of D-optimal experimental designs. Technometrics (1974) 16(May):203–210Google Scholar
• Mitchell T. J., Miller F. L. Use of design repair to construct designs for special linear models. Mathematics Division Annual Progress Report (ORNL–4661) (1970) (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN) 130–131Google Scholar
• Sándor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(4):440–443Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sibson R. DA-optimality and duality. Progress in Statistics, Colloquia Mathematica Societatis János Bolyai (1972) 9:677–692Google Scholar
• Silvey S. D.Optimal Design: An Introduction to the Theory for Parameter Estimation (1980) (Chapman and Hall, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sinha A., Inman J., Wang Y., Park J. Practice prize report: Attribute drivers: A factor analytic choice map approach for understanding choices among SKUs. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):351–359Link, Google Scholar
• Toubia O., Simester D. I., Hauser J. R., Dahan E. Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(3, Summer):273–303Link, Google Scholar