This forum is for questions related to the use of Apollo. We will answer some general choice modelling questions too, where appropriate, and time permitting. We cannot answer questions about how to estimate choice models with other software packages.
Before asking a question on the forum, users are kindly requested to follow these steps:
Check that the same issue has not already been addressed in the forum - there is a search tool.
Ensure that the correct syntax has been used. For any function, detailed instructions are available directly in Apollo, e.g. by using ?apollo_mnl for apollo_mnl
To update to the latest official version, just enter install.packages("apollo"). To update to a development version, download the appropriate binary file from http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/code.html, and install the package from file
If the above steps do not resolve the issue, then users should follow these steps when posting a question:
provide full details on the issue, including the entire code and output, including any error messages
posts will not immediately appear on the forum, but will be checked by a moderator first. We check the forum at least twice a week. It may thus take a couple of days for your post to appear and before we reply. There is no need to submit the post multiple times.
I've got a question about the modelling of the unforced choice data in a dual-response DCE with status quo (respondents first choose between A and B, and afterwards between the chosen option and the status quo). In case of separate analysis of the forced and unforced choice data, the analysis of the first stage (the forced choice) is straightforward. The analysis of the second stage (the unforced choice) is less clear to me, though, and it seems different approaches are taken in the literature:
1. In some studies, like for this DCE, this DCE, or this DCE, the unforced choice data are modelled as if there was a choice between A, B, or the opt-out/status quo. But I'm doubting whether that is correct, because respondents did not actually have the choice between those options: there was only a choice between the previously chosen option and the status quo.
2. Other studies do the same as #1, but then using a nested logit (in which A and B are nested together against the opt-out/status quo).
3. Yet others model the unforced choice data using a MNL model as the choice between two alternatives: the previously chosen option and the status quo/opt-out. So
4. Then there are studies estimating a heteroskedastic extreme value model, like for this DCE and this DCE, in which the error variance is allowed to vary between alternatives.
5. And finally, I came across studies that estimated a rank-ordered logit model (like in the appendix of this DCE) - but I'm doubting whether that's correct in this context, given that you don't always get a full preference ordering (if respondents choose the same option in both the first and second stage), unlike in a best-best DCE or best-worst DCE/BWS Case 3.
I'm curious what you think is the preferred approach here.
If the second choice is truly only between the first pref and the opt-out, then it's indeed a sequence of two binary choices. let's say someone chooses A over B, then SQ over A. It would then be P(A|A,B)*P(SQ|B,SQ). You need to model them jointly in this way. If you only model the choice for the second stage, you would need to definitely consider endogeneity concerns given that the choice set depends on the first round choice