Timeline for Conjoint Analysis in R and SPSS result in Different Standard Errors using Same Data
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2020 at 20:54 | comment | added | David Nichols | All such analyses that I'm aware of analyze scores, but these data were in the original form of ranks, which means that the means and variances of the data for each subject were the same. That would be true of sequence data as well, which are just another way of expressing rankings. If the original input data were arbitrary scores that were not to be transformed for analysis, then the means and variances might not be the same. That was what I was saying in the previous comment. | |
| May 5, 2020 at 21:07 | comment | added | Tumaini Kilimba | But they both are measuring a score, not a ranking or sequence. The tutorial (R Conjoint) has the data converted from ranking to rating. I then use the same converted preferences in SPSS, as scores. Or did I misunderstand your comment? | |
| May 4, 2020 at 18:30 | comment | added | David Nichols | Yes, the SPSS results are conservative here. If the outcome were measured as a score rather than a ranking or sequence, then there might be subject-to-subject variability that the R approach would not capture, so I wouldn't call it unconditionally correct, but the SPSS approach would likely remain more conservative. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 10:18 | comment | added | Tumaini Kilimba | Is the R implementation, then, the more "correct" of the two? | |
| May 3, 2020 at 9:59 | comment | added | Tumaini Kilimba | Thank you very much for providing this clarity. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 9:56 | vote | accept | Tumaini Kilimba | ||
| Apr 29, 2020 at 17:05 | history | answered | David Nichols | CC BY-SA 4.0 |