Abstract
This paper provides an empirical comparison of two methods of attribute valuation: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and conjoint analysis. Variants within each approach are also examined. The results of two empirical studies indicate that the methods differ in their predictive and convergent validity. Within the AHP methods no significant difference in predictive validity was found. Within the conjoint methods, the ranking method significantly outperformed the rating method. The difference in predictive validity between the AHP and conjoint methods was significant in the second study but not in the first study, suggesting superior performance of the AHP over conjoint analysis in complex problems. Copyright© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
