Đánh giá thực nghiệm về tính hợp lệ đo lường quốc tế của các so sánh cặp có phân loại

Agresti A.: Analysis of ordinal paired comparison data. Appl. Stat. 2, 287–297 (1992) Albaum, G., Peterson, R.: Cross-cultural/national usage of constant sum scales. In: Hung, K., Monroe, K.B. (eds.) Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 3, p. 217. Association for Consumer Research, Provo (1998) Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M.: Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J. Mark. Res. 38, 143–156 (2001) Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M.: Response biases in marketing research. In: Grover, R., Vriens, M. (eds) The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances, pp. 95–109. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2006) Bech M., Gyrd-Hansen D., Kjaer T., Lauridsen J., Sørensen J.: Graded pairs comparison: does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management. Health Econ. 16, 513–529 (2007) Bengston R., Brenner H.: Product test results using three different methodologies. J. Mark. Res. 1, 49–52 (1964) Bijmolt T.H.A., Wedel M.: The effects of alternative methods of collecting similarity data for multidimensional scaling. Int. J. Res. Mark. 12, 363–371 (1995) Bolondi L., Gaiani S., Gebel M., Yeh L.L., Kim K.O., Chompreeda P., Rimkeeree H., Yau M.J.N., Lundahl D.S.: Comparison in use of the 9-point hedonic scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Qual. Prefer. 9, 413–419 (1998) Bradley R.A., Terry M.E.: The rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 41, 502–537 (1952) Brinkman J.: Proeven van Succes. Sensorisch Onderzoek: Technieken, Procedures en Toepassingen, 2nd edn. Keesing Noordervliet, Rotterdam (2006) Burton M.L.: Too many questions? The uses of incomplete cyclic designs for paired comparisons. Field Methods 15, 115–130 (2003) Cattin P., Wittink D.R.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J. Mark. 46, 44–53 (1982) Cheung G.W., Rensvold R.B.: Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 31, 187–212 (2000) Courcoux Ph., Semenou M.: Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model. Food Qual. Pref. 8, 353–358 (1997) Danielis R., Marcucci E., Rotaris L.: Logistics managers’ stated preferences for freight service attributes. Transp. Res. 41, 201–215 (2005) David H.A.: The Method of Paired Comparisons. Hafner, New York (1963) David H.A.: The Method of Paired Comparisons, 2nd edn. Charles Griffin, London (1988) Davidson R.R., Farquhar P.H.: A bibliography on the method of paired comparisons. Biometrics 32, 234–241 (1976) Davison M.L.: Multidimensional Scaling. Wiley, New York (1983) Day R.L.: Systematic paired comparisons in preference analysis. J. Mark. Res. 2, 406–412 (1965) Day R.L.: Preference tests and the management of product features. J. Mark. 32, 24–29 (1968) De Beuckelaer A.: A closer examination on some parametric alternatives to the ANOVA F-test. Stat. Pap. 37, 291–305 (1996) De Jong M.G., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M., Fox J.-P., Baumgartner H.: Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: a global investigation. J. Mark. Res. 45, 104–115 (2008) Gabrielsen G.: A multi-level model of preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 337–344 (2001) Games P.A., Keselman H.J., Rogan J.C.: Simultaneous pairwise multiple comparison procedures for means when sample sizes are unequal. Psychol. Bull. 90, 594–598 (1981) Green P.E., Srinivasan V.: Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 5, 103–123 (1978) Green P.E., Krieger A.M., Vavra T.G.: Evaluating new products: conjoint analysis offers a level of detail that few concept testing methods can match. Mark. Res. 9, 12–21 (1997) Greenberg A.: Paired comparisons versus monadic tests. J. Advert. Res. 3, 44–47 (1963) Greenberg A., Collins S.: Paired comparison taste tests: some food for thought. J. Mark. Res. 3, 76–80 (1966) Gulliksen H.: A least squares solution for paired comparisons with incomplete data. Psychometrika 21, 125–134 (1956) Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E.: Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation. J. Econ. Surv. 15, 435–462 (2001) Hauser J.R., Urban G.L.: A normative methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation. Oper. Res. 25, 579–619 (1977) Helm R., Scholl A., Manthey L., Steiner M.: Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 1, 12–29 (2004) Hooley G.J., Saunders J.A., Piercy N.: Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning. Pearson Education, Harlow (2004) Johnson R.M.: A career between theory and practice. J. Mark. Res. 42, 243–249 (2005) Johnson F.R., Desvousges W.H.: Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health and employment effects of energy programs. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 34, 79–99 (1997) Johnson T.P., Kulesa P., Cho Y.I., Shavitt S.: The relation between culture and response styles: evidence from 19 countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 36, 264–277 (2005) Kampen J.K.: The impact of survey methodology and context on central tendency, nonresponse and associations of subjective indicators of government performance. Qual. Quan. 41, 793–813 (2007) Lilien G.L., Rangaswamy A.: Marketing Engineering: Computer-Assisted Marketing Analysis and Planning, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2003) Netzer, O., Srinivasan, V.: Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-Attribute Preferences. Research Paper Series. Research Paper No. 1979. Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford (2007) Odesky S.H.: Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Mark. Res. 4, 199–201 (1967) Ofir C.: Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price thresholds: predicting basic consumer reaction to price. J. Consum. Res. 30, 612–621 (2004) O’Mahony M., Masuaka S., Ishii R.: A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sens. Stud. 9, 247–272 (1994) Paulhus, D.L.: Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, vol. 1. Academic Press, San Diego (1991) Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J.: Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 11(Suppl.), 9–14 (1957) Rosenberger R.S., Peterson G.L., Loomis J.B.: Applying a method of paired comparisons to measure economic values for multiple goods sets. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 34, 215–229 (2002) Schiffman S.S., Reynolds M.L., Young F.W.: Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. Academic Press, Orlando (1981) Smith S.M., Albaum G.S.: Fundamentals of Marketing Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2004) Smith P.B., Fischer R.: Acquiescence, extreme response bias and culture: a multilevel analysis. In: Van De Vijver, F.J.R., Van Hemert, D.A., Poortinga, Y. (eds) Individuals and Cultures in Multilevel Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2008) Thurstone L.L.: A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273–286 (1927) Tomarken A.J., Serlin R.C.: Comparison of ANOVA alternatives under variance heterogeneity and specific noncentrality structures. Psychol. Bull. 99, 90–99 (1986) Torgerson W.S.: Theory and Method of Scaling. Wiley, New York (1958) Van Dijk T.K., Datema F., Piggen A.-L.J.H.F., Welten S.C.M., Van De Vijver F.J.R.: Acquiescence and extremity in cross-national surveys: domain dependence and country-level correlates. In: Gari, A., Mylonas, K. (eds) Quod Erat Demonstrandum: From Herodotus’ Ethnographic Journeys to Cross-Cultural Research, Pedio Books Publishing, Athens (2009) Van Herk H., Poortinga Y.H., Verhallen T.M.M.: Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from 6 EU countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35, 346–360 (2004) Viswanathan M., Sudman S., Johnson M.: Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response: implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products. J. Bus. Res. 57, 108–124 (2004) Wind Y., Denny J., Cunningham A.: A comparison of thee brand evaluation procedures. Public Opin. Q. 43, 261–270 (1979)