Greetings Michiel,
Perhaps what I am trying to achieve is a little unorthodox.
1. I am trying to create a fractional factorial orthogonal design for unlabeled alternatives with contextual attributes.
2. In my studies, the respondent makes a choice of an alternative conditional on the contextual attribute levels present in the choice set.
2.1 For the sake of example, one study could be surveying parents on what car they would choose (the unlabeled alternatives) conditional on a hypothetical teenager (the contextual attributes in the choice set). The contextual attributes could be age, employment status, and/or performance in school for the teenager.
3. From the standpoint of actually implementing the design in a survey, the respondent will need to see the two unlabeled alternatives and one set of contextual attribute levels from which they make their appropriate choice per choice set.
4. It is my understanding that, a design as described above would need no correlation between alternative one and the contextual attributes, as well as no correlation between alternative one and the contextual attributes, but there can be correlation between the alternatives.
5. As you mentioned, strictly speaking, a model from such a design would be unestimable. But, if one interacts the context attributes with alternative specific constants and estimates them for J-1 alternatives, one can estimate a model.
6. My work around is to create a labeled alternative design using
- Code: Select all
;orth=sim
, where the context variables only enter one alternative (to achieve one set of context variables per choice set). For example:
- Code: Select all
Design
;alts = alt1, alt2
;rows = ##
;orth = sim
;model:
U(alt1) = b0+b1*A[1,2]+b2*B[1,2,3]+b3*C[1,2,3,4]+b4*D[1,2,3] +b5*E[1,2,3]+b6*F[1,2,3,4] +b7*G[1,2] +b8*S[1,2]+b9*H[1,2,3,4] +b10*I[1,2]/
U(alt2) = b14+b1*A +b2*B +b3*C +b4*D +b5*E +b6*F +b7*G
$
6.1 Attributes after "G" are contextual. The problem here is that, since the alternatives are specified as labeled, some choice sets have identical alternative levels when used for unlabeled alternative studies. My solution has simply been to switch the alternate levels from choice sets in which this occurs to other choice sets, which induces some correlation in the design.
Finally, my question:
is there a better workaround to the one described above? I am not comfortable with efficient designs yet (from my understanding
page 174 of the manual, creating such a design for the issues described above is possible when creating an efficient design). So, unless creating an efficient design using
- Code: Select all
;eff = (mnl,d)
will give me a design with almost no correlation, then I’d rather not attempt it.
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards,
R