Hi,
I have generated a pivot design experiment and conducted a pilot survey in order to find the prior values of parameters. Following are the details of the survey design:
Design Type: Pivot Design
Model command used in Ngene: ;eff = fish(mnl,d) --> (Eventually I wish to use rppanel for estimation. However, I received a feedback through forum to use MNL for the pilot stage).
No of alternatives: 3
No of attributes per alternative: 4
No. of levels per attribute: 5
No. of blocks: 2
Scenarios per block: 10
Valid responses received: 15
Total rows of SP data: 150
I fit a MNL model on these 150 rows of data and getting the following estimates:
Name Coefficient p-value
TTIME -0.146 0.00
SNGO -0.0163 0.39
SNTTIME -0.0121 0.56
VRC -0.949 0.00
The sign of all these estimates is fine. The issues are, The estimates SNGO and SNTTIME are insignificant (even at 30%) & coefficient of SNGO is too low.
I checked another post on the forum with the subject "insignificant priors from the pilot data" and found it helpful.
--> Is it okay to say that the deviations from the expected outcome might be because of the small sample size & I should try to get more responses.
--> Is any intervention required to alter the experimental design or the format of the survey?
--> Prof. Rose mentioned something about "preferences in the population are close to zero, but not zero". Does that apply to my SNGO estimate too? Currently, I used the attrbute levels as {-.5, -.25, 0, +.25, +.5}. Will I be able to capture the preference of SNGO by expanding this interval beyond {-.5, +.5} ??
I'll be grateful if someone can assist me in clarifying the doubts.
Thanks in advance.
Neeraj
Insignificant priors from the Pivot Design experiment
Moderators: Andrew Collins, Michiel Bliemer, johnr
Re: Insignificant priors from the Pivot Design experiment
A gentle reminder on this please.
Thanks
Neeraj
Thanks
Neeraj
-
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:13 pm
Re: Insignificant priors from the Pivot Design experiment
Coefficients that are not significant means either that your attribute is not very relevant, or that the sample size is too small. In your case it could be a sample size issue. It could also be a design issue if your attribute levels are very narrow. Maybe your levels -0.5 to 0.5 are narrow, that is for you to decide. The wider the better from a statistical point of view, as long as they make sense.