Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T13:03:51.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model for Repeat Paired Comparison Preference Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Bruce Buchanan
Bruce Buchanan*
Affiliation:
New York University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce Buchanan, Department of Marketing, New York University, 532 Tisch Hall, Washington Square, New York, NY 10003.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A model is proposed that describes subject behavior on repeat paired comparison preference tests. The model extends prior work in this area in that it explicitly allows for abstentions and permits the derivation of individual true scores for discrimination ability as well as conditional estimates of proportionate preference. With these results, the properties of a paired comparison test can be thoroughly explored. An empirical example is presented, and test design issues are considered. In particular, repeat paired comparison preference tests are shown to be inherently less efficient discrimination tests than are pick 1 of 2 tests.

Keywords

preference testingDirichlet distributionrandom guessingtopastic error variance

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 209 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Buchanan, B. S. (1983). Design issues in discrimination and preference testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. S. (1987). A model for repeat trial product tests. Psychometrika, 52, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B. S., Morrison, D. G. (1985). Measuring simple preferences: An approach to blind, forced choice product testing. Marketing Science, 4, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R. L. (1969). Position bias in paired product tests. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R. L. (1974). Measuring preferences. In Ferber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of marketing research, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R., Hunter, W. G., Tierney, D. E. (1969). Analyzing paired comparison product tests. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der psychophysik [Elements of psychophysics], Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. E. (1958). Thek-visit method of consumer testing. Biometrics, 14, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. G. (1965). A modification of Thurstone's law of comparative judgment to accomodate a judgment category of “equal” or “no difference.”. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gridgeman, N. T. (1959). Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics, 15, 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelblau, D. M. (1972). Applied nonlinear programing, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Horsnell, G. (1969). A theory of consumer preference derived from repeat paired preference testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 132, 164–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsnell, G. (1977). Paired comparison product testing when individual preferences are stochastic: An alternative model. Applied Statistics, 26, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyett, G. P., McKenzie, J. R. (1976). Discrimination tests and repeat paired comparisons tests. Journal of the Market Research Society, 18, 24–31.Google Scholar
Irwin, F. W. (1958). An analysis of the concepts of discrimination and preference. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, F. M. (1959). An approach to mental test theory. Psychometrika, 24, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1975). Formula scoring and number right scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Magnusson, D. (1966). Test theory, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
McAlister, L., Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I. W. (1977). On Bayesian formula scores for random guessing in multiple choice tests. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 30, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I. W. (1981). On Wilcox's latent structure model for guessing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. N. (1983). Parametric empirical Bayes inference: Theory and applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odesky, S. H. (1967). Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penny, J. C., Hunt, I. M., Twyman, W. A. (1972). Product testing methodology in relation to marketing problems: a review. Journal of the Market Research Society, 14, 1–29.Google Scholar
Ross, I. (1969). Handling the neutral vote in product testing. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 221–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 4, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Ven, A. H. G. S. (1974). A Bayesian formula score for the simple knowledge or random guessing model. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Psychology, 29, 409–414.Google Scholar
Wierenga, B. (1974). Paired comparison product testing when individual preferences are stochastic. Applied Statistics, 23, 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1979). Comparing examinees to a control. Psychometrika, 44, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1981). Solving measurement problems with an answer until correct scoring procedure. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1981). Analyzing the distractors of multiple-choice test items or partitioning multinomial cell probabilities with respect to a standard. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1051–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1981). Selecting thet best ofk examinees whose true score is better than a standard. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1982). Some empirical and theoretical results on an answer until correct scoring procedure. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, R. R. (1983). How do examinees behave when taking multiple choice tests?. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar