Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
MaxDiff / Best-Worst Scaling/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

MaxDiff / Best-Worst Scaling

MaxDiff, also known as best-worst scaling (BWS), measures the relative importance or preference of a set of items by repeatedly asking respondents to identify the best (most important or most preferred) and worst (least) item within small subsets. Introduced by Jordan Louviere and formalized by Marley and Louviere's 2005 probabilistic models, the method exploits the fact that people are far better at picking extremes than at rating many items on a scale. Each best-worst judgment reveals the maximum-difference pair in a set, and across many balanced subsets the choices pin down a single interval scale of item utilities. Because every respondent is forced to make trade-offs, MaxDiff sidesteps the scale-use bias and lack of discrimination that plague rating grids, where respondents often call everything important. Item scores can be computed by simple best-minus-worst counts or, more rigorously, by fitting a multinomial logit choice model, with hierarchical Bayes yielding individual-level, probability-scaled importances. The result is a clear, discriminating ranking of items that supports prioritization, segmentation, and feature selection.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Maximum Difference Scaling (Best-Worst Scaling)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · regression-model / marketing-research
  • Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2015). Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI 10.1017/CBO9781107337855
  • Marley, A. A. J., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(6), 464-480. · DOI 10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003
  • Orme, B. K. (2020). Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research (4th ed.). Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC. · ISBN 9780972729772
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Often confused withAdaptive Conjoint Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyChoice-Based Conjointmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Often confused withConjoint Market Simulatormachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyDiscrete Choice Experimentmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

3 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto