- Standard question types
- Advanced question types
- Multiple choice question type
- Text question- comment box
- Matrix multi-point scales question type
- Rank order question
- Smiley-rating question
- Image question type
- Date and time question type
- CAPTCHA question type
- Net Promoter Score question type
- Van Westendorp's price sensitivity question
- Choice modelling questions
- Side-By-Side matrix question
- Homunculus question type
- Randomizer
- Block rotation using randomization
- Predictive answer options
- Presentation text questions
- Multiple choice: select one
- Multiple choice: select many
- Page timer
- Contact information question
- Matrix multi-select question
- Matrix spreadsheet question

- Answer type
- Reorder questions
- Question tips
- Text box next to question
- Text question settings
- Adding other option
- Matrix question settings
- Image rating question settings
- Scale options for numeric slider question
- Constant sum question settings
- Budget scale question settings
- Setting default answer option
- Exclusive option for multiple choice questions
- validate question
- Bulk validation
- Remove validation message
- Question separators
- Fragecodes
- Page breaks in survey
- Survey introduction with acceptance checkbox
- RegEx Validation

- Branching - Skip Logic
- Compound Branching
- Compound or delayed branching
- Dynamic quota control
- Dynamic text or comment boxes
- Extraction logic
- Show or hide question logic
- Dynamic show or hide
- Scoring logic
- Net promoter scoring model
- Piping text
- Survey chaining
- Looping logic
- Branching to terminate survey
- Logic operators

Profiles

Let each respondent see T tasks, with t = 1 ... T

Let each task t have C configurations (or concepts), with c = 1 ... C (C in our case is usually 3 or 4)

If we have A attributes, a = 1 to A, with each attribute having La levels, l = 1 to La, then the part-worth for a particular attribute/level is w’(a,l). It is this (jagged array) of part worths we are solving for in this exercise.

We can simplify this to a one-dimensional array w(s), where the elements are:{w’(1,1), w’(1,2) ... w’(1,L1), w’(2,1) ... w’(A,LA)} with w having S elements.

A specific configuration x can be represented as a one-dimensional array x(s), where x(s)=1 if the specific level/attribute is present, and 0 otherwise.

Let Xrtc represent the specific configuration of the cth configuration in the tth task for the rth respondent. Thus the experiment design is represented by the four dimensional matrix X with size RxTxCxS

If respondent r chooses configuration c in task t then let Yrtc=1; otherwise 0.

EXP(U1)/(EXP(U1) + EXP(U2)) of the time (a number between 0 and 1).

For a choice between N configurations, configuration 1 will be chosen

EXP(U1)/(EXP(U1) + EXP(U2) + ... + EXP(UN)) of the time.

Prtc=EXP(xrtc.w)/SUM(EXP(xrt1.w), EXP(xrt2.w), ... , EXP(xrtC.w))

This is a multi-dimensional non-linear continuous maximization problem, and requires a standard solver library. We use the Nelder-Mead Simplex Algorithm.

The Log-Likelihood function should be implemented as a function LL(w, Y, X), and then optimized to find the vector w that gives us a maximum. The responses Y, and the design X are given, and constant for a specific optimization. Initial values for w can be set to the origin 0.

The final part-worths w are re-scaled so that the part-worths for any attribute have a mean of zero, simply by subtracting the mean of the part-worths for all levels of each attribute.

A conjoint profile is a set of attributes with different levels that are displayed for selection. Respondents would be shown a set of products, prototypes, mockups, or pictures created from a combination of levels from all or some of the constituent attributes and asked to choose from the products they are shown. Each example is similar enough that consumers will see them as close substitutes, but dissimilar enough that respondents can clearly determine a preference. Each example is composed of a unique combination of product features.

To view detailed Profiles:

Go to: **Login » Surveys » Reports » Choice Modelling » Conjoint Analysis » Profiles**

By default results displayed will be excluding prohibited pairs if any selected by the users in the beginning .

The best profile is always displayed on the left and the worst profile on the right. In between, you can select a custom profile to see how it compares with the best and the worst profile.If any pair is selected in prohibited pair that will not be displayed in best, worst or custom profile.If user still want to see the prohibited pairs they can enable the including prohibited pairs option provided.

For the selected profile, you can see the percentage point difference between the best profile and the selected profile in red.

The percentage point difference between the worst profile and the selected profile is displayed in green.

You can also limit/narrow down on the profiles by selecting specific levels for the attributes.

Attribute and level with highest Total Part Worth Value will be selected as the Best Profile and the one with lowest Total Part Worth value will be selected as the Worst Profile.

**Calculating Part-Worths Values**

We use the following algorithm to calculate CBC Conjoint Part-Worths:

**Notation**

Let each respondent see T tasks, with t = 1 ... T

Let each task t have C configurations (or concepts), with c = 1 ... C (C in our case is usually 3 or 4)

If we have A attributes, a = 1 to A, with each attribute having La levels, l = 1 to La, then the part-worth for a particular attribute/level is w’(a,l). It is this (jagged array) of part worths we are solving for in this exercise.

We can simplify this to a one-dimensional array w(s), where the elements are:{w’(1,1), w’(1,2) ... w’(1,L1), w’(2,1) ... w’(A,LA)} with w having S elements.

A specific configuration x can be represented as a one-dimensional array x(s), where x(s)=1 if the specific level/attribute is present, and 0 otherwise.

Let Xrtc represent the specific configuration of the cth configuration in the tth task for the rth respondent. Thus the experiment design is represented by the four dimensional matrix X with size RxTxCxS

If respondent r chooses configuration c in task t then let Yrtc=1; otherwise 0.

**Utility Of A Specific Configuration**

**The Multinomial Logit Model**

EXP(U1)/(EXP(U1) + EXP(U2)) of the time (a number between 0 and 1).

For a choice between N configurations, configuration 1 will be chosen

EXP(U1)/(EXP(U1) + EXP(U2) + ... + EXP(UN)) of the time.

**Modeled Choice Probability**

Prtc=EXP(xrtc.w)/SUM(EXP(xrt1.w), EXP(xrt2.w), ... , EXP(xrtC.w))

**Log-likelihood Measure**

The Log-Likelihood measure LL is calculated as:

Prtc is a function of the part-worth vector w, which is the set of part-worths we are solving for.

**Solving For Part-worths Using Maximum Likelihood**

This is a multi-dimensional non-linear continuous maximization problem, and requires a standard solver library. We use the Nelder-Mead Simplex Algorithm.

The Log-Likelihood function should be implemented as a function LL(w, Y, X), and then optimized to find the vector w that gives us a maximum. The responses Y, and the design X are given, and constant for a specific optimization. Initial values for w can be set to the origin 0.

The final part-worths w are re-scaled so that the part-worths for any attribute have a mean of zero, simply by subtracting the mean of the part-worths for all levels of each attribute.

You may also be interested in...
Conjoint Analysis - FAQ
Conjoint - Best Practice Implementation FAQ
Market Segmentation Simulator