MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081301917 · doi:10.2501/s1470785309201314

How far can you rely on a concept test: the generalizability of testing over occasions

2011· article· en· W2081301917 on OpenAlexaff
Ling Peng, Adam Finn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Market Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryTest (biology)BusinessMarketingComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In practice, product managers have to assume consumer evaluations of concepts generalise from the time (and research environment) of concept testing to the time (and market environment) of market introduction. However, little is known about the temporal stability or generalisability of the results of concept testing over occasions. Rarely have concept-testing studies incorporated testing of the same concepts on the same respondents on more than one occasion. This research investigates the importance of occasions as a source of error variance in estimates of the generalisability of concept test scores for both minor and major innovations within the context of Generalisability theory. The study collected concept evaluations of ten innovations from members of an online panel on three occasions, approximately a month apart. The results show that the three-way interaction among subjects, concepts and occasions is a substantial contributor to variation in concept testing of both major and minor innovations, with the contribution for major innovations even more substantial than for minor innovations. Moreover, failure to recognize occasions as an explicit source of variance in the generalisability analyses will lead managers to overestimate the generalisability of their decision studies. However, the impact of neglecting occasions varies by purpose of measurement and associated object of measurement. This research provides insight about how well concept testing can generalise over occasions. Concept test evaluations provided on an initial exposure are more favourable than will be received on any later occasions, and apparent differences in consumer evaluations of a particular concept in an initial test do not provide a generalisable basis for identifying which consumers will respond most favourably to it on a later occasion. For concept testing to be used for targeting or segmentation, more occasions will need to be sampled.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.275
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.673
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2750.673
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.019
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.559
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.056 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Market ResearchSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207