Nickerson C A, McClelland G H, Petersen D M
Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado, Boulder 80309.
J Behav Med. 1991 Jun;14(3):241-66. doi: 10.1007/BF00845454.
Previous assessments of individuals' values for various contraceptive consequences have employed one of four methodologies: free elicitation, direct ratings, multiple regression, or factor analysis. All four methodologies are flawed because they produce group rather than individual values, relying on rating scales, and fail to incorporate information regarding consequence trade-offs. Axiomatic conjoint measurement is proposed as an alternative methodology and used to determine individuals' values for a selected set of contraceptive consequences at two stages of the family-planning career.
自由 elicitation、直接评分、多元回归或因子分析。这四种方法都存在缺陷，因为它们产生的是群体而非个体价值观，依赖评分量表，且未纳入有关后果权衡的信息。公理联合测量被提议作为一种替代方法，并用于在计划生育生涯的两个阶段确定个体对于一组选定避孕后果的价值观。
