Dear Michiel,
I am also planning on using a dual response structure for my study. I've had a look through some of the related forum posts but still have a few questions, if you are able to provide some guidance please.
I am planning a choice experiment with 3 unlabelled alternatives and a status quo option. I plan on generating the design in Ngene, and then implementing in Sawtooth (as this is what I have access to). Sawtooth's built-in dual-response structure requires that forced choice comes first {Choice 1: A, B, C}, followed by a second question asking if they really would choose the alternative they selected in the first stage (i.e., Choice 2: Choice 1 vs. status quo policy):
https://sawtoothsoftware.com/help/lighthouse-studio/manual/hid_web_cbc_none.htmlI read in another post that you recommend asking unforced followed by forced (to avoid redundancy) but unfortunately this structure isn't possible in Sawtooth without having two separate choice sets:
http://choice-metrics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=515&p=1956&hilit=dual+response#p1956My question is about whether the Sawtooth-style dual-response structure is compatible with the model estimation strategy I am planning (to conduct in NLOGIT).
I plan on first conducting a pilot study to estimate a main-effects only MNL model to obtain prior distributions for the main study. Then for the main study, I am particularly interested in two models. To assess attribute importance and conduct demand forecasting, I plan on estimating an error components panel model (as I have multiple observations per respondent). My understanding is that this type of mixed logit model is particularly suited for designs including an opt-out/status quo alternative as we expect the error variance for the status quo alternative to differ to the set of the other 3 alternatives (nested structure). Then, I am also planning on using latent class panel modelling to examine preference heterogeneity among subgroups.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Many thanks,
Tom