2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-17311-5_51
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Application of Item Response Theory to Consumer Judgment

Abstract: A probabilistic approach based on multidimensional item response theory (IRT) is proposed to model consumer judgment. Compared to multidimensional scaling and factor analysis, item response theory requires less input from subjects but provides equal or more information. Therefore, IRT holds great promise in applying to the marketing context. The process underlying consumer evaluation is hypothesized as the comparison between the product value a brand provides and the expectations characterizing a consumer. Tha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some examples of these papers, in the order of increasing complexity of the item response theory models, are as follows. Lou (1995) presented a brief review paper on item response theory for consumer judgment. Raykov and Calantone (2014) provided a more extensive review paper that discussed the utility of item response theory modeling in marketing research and presented many basic concepts and models within item response theory (see also Bacon & Lenk, 2008;Salzberger & Koller, 2013;Singh, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some examples of these papers, in the order of increasing complexity of the item response theory models, are as follows. Lou (1995) presented a brief review paper on item response theory for consumer judgment. Raykov and Calantone (2014) provided a more extensive review paper that discussed the utility of item response theory modeling in marketing research and presented many basic concepts and models within item response theory (see also Bacon & Lenk, 2008;Salzberger & Koller, 2013;Singh, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%