conjoint-design

Name: conjoint-design
Author: scdenney

34stars0forks

How to install conjoint-design?

scdenney/open-science-skills/conjoint-design

$npx -y skills add scdenney/open-science-skills --skill conjoint-design

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Design conjoint experiments covering attributes, power, and AMCE/AMIE estimation. Use for conjoint design choices, attribute tables, estimands, and power planning.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Conjoint Design Expert
2
3	## Instructions
4
5	> Worked example (attribute table → power calculation → PAP tier assignment): see `reference/example.md`.
6
7	### 1. Attribute Architecture
8	- Orthogonality: Ensure every attribute is independent of every other attribute to allow for the estimation of causal effects for each component.
9	- Randomization of Order: Order attributes randomly at the respondent level (not the task level) to prevent "primacy" or "recency" effects while avoiding the cognitive overload of finding information in different orders across tasks (Stantcheva 2023). A specific logical flow may override this if theoretically required.
10	- D-Optimal Designs: Consider D-optimal or constrained randomization schemes rather than pure randomization. D-optimal designs choose the sets of administered conditions that maximize statistical power and may be preferable when the number of possible attribute combinations is large relative to the sample size (Auspurg & Hinz 2015; Stantcheva 2023).
11	- Attribute Density: Monitor for respondent fatigue. Stefanelli and Lukac (2020) cite evidence that conjoint results remain stable with up to 10 attributes; Bansak et al. (2018) find that response quality does not degrade with up to 30 tasks on MTurk, and Bansak et al. (2021, "Beyond the Breaking Point") extend this to the attribute dimension, reporting stability at many attributes. These are the canonical sources for the task- and attribute-count claims respectively. Still evaluate whether the complexity of the levels increases cognitive load beyond the attribute count alone.
12	- Nested/Constrained Randomization: Not all attributes need to be fully crossed. When ecological validity demands it, certain attribute levels can be linked or nested within other attributes (e.g., origin countries nested within policy domain). This is acceptable when: (a) the nesting is theoretically justified, (b) the primary attributes of interest remain fully independently randomized, and (c) the analyst acknowledges that nested attributes cannot be cleanly separated from their parent attribute. See Auspurg & Hinz (2015) on restricted randomization in factorial surveys.
13	- Attribute-Level Restrictions: Implausible combinations can be excluded when they would confuse respondents or produce artifactual responses, but this is a judgment call, not a mandate. Eye-tracking evidence from Bansak & Jenke (2025) shows that odd (incongruent or nonsensical) attribute combinations have minimal, inconsistent effects on respondent attention, search, and choice, so decisions to include or exclude them should be driven primarily by statistical, substantive, and theoretical considerations (e.g., whether the randomization distribution should reflect a real-world target distribution per De la Cuesta, Egami & Imai 2022) rather than by assumed cognitive-burden concerns. Document all restrictions in the pre-analysis plan.
14	- Medium-Level Specificity: Attribute levels should be concrete enough to be meaningful but not so specific that they introduce unintended confounds. Describe treatments at a "medium level of specificity" -- "fully described but not overly described" (Sniderman 2018). Avoid vague descriptions (e.g., "a policy that helps the economy") and overly narrow ones (e.g., "a $2.3B infrastructure bill for Route 95 in Pennsylvania").
15
16	### 2. Statistical Power and Error Logic
17	- Effective N (N_eff): Calculate sample size based on (Respondents $\times$ Tasks $\times$ Profiles). Throughout this section, N_eff refers to this effective number of profile evaluations. However, respondents and tasks are not interchangeable -- adding respondents improves precision more than adding tasks per respondent due to within-respondent correlation. When in doubt, prioritize more respondents over more tasks (Stefanelli and Lukac 2020).
18	- Closed-Form Formula: The standard error of an AMCE is approximately: SE = $\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y) \times L / N_{\text{eff}}}$, where $L$ is the number of levels for the attribute and N_eff is as defined above (Schuessler and Freitag 2020). This provides a quick diagnostic for whether precision is adequate.
19	- Interaction Power: Estimating interaction effects requires approximately twice the sample size needed for main AMCEs, in the canonical balanced two-level-by-two-level case; the exact multiplier scales with the number of levels on each interacting attribute. The standard error of an interaction coefficient is approximately $\sqrt{2}$ times the SE of the corresponding main effect in that balanced case (Schuessler and Freitag 2020). Budget accordingly when interaction hypotheses are confirmatory.
20	- Empirical AMCE Benchmarks: Typical AMCEs in published conjoint studies range from 0.02 to 0.10 (perce

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

web-design-guidelinesReview UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".SkillsJul 2026483k29k
lark-slides飞书幻灯片：创建和编辑幻灯片。创建演示文稿、读取幻灯片内容、管理幻灯片页面（创建、删除、读取、局部替换）。当用户需要创建或编辑幻灯片、读取或修改单个页面时使用。当用户给出 doubao.com 的 /slides/ URL/token 时，也应直接使用本 skill，不要因为域名不是飞书而回退到 WebFetch；路由依据是 URL 路径模式和 token，而不是域名。不负责：云文档内容编辑（走 SkillsJul 2026332k16k
design-taste-frontendTaste-Skill - gives your AI good taste. stops the AI from generating boring, generic slop SkillsJul 2026280k66k
ui-ux-pro-maxUI/UX design intelligence for web and mobile. Searchable local database with 84 styles, 192 color palettes, 74 font pairings, 192 product types, 98 UX guidelines, 104 icon entries, 16 GSAP motion presSkillsJul 2026280k109k
caveman-helpQuick-reference card for all caveman modes, skills, and commands. One-shot display, not a persistent mode. Trigger: /caveman-help, "caveman help", "what caveman commands", "how do I use caveman".SkillsJul 2026249k92k
codebase-designShared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-nSkillsJul 2026225k182k

conjoint-design

34stars0forks

View on GitHub

How to install conjoint-design?

scdenney/open-science-skills/conjoint-design

$npx -y skills add scdenney/open-science-skills --skill conjoint-design

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Design conjoint experiments covering attributes, power, and AMCE/AMIE estimation. Use for conjoint design choices, attribute tables, estimands, and power planning.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Conjoint Design Expert
2
3	## Instructions
4
5	> Worked example (attribute table → power calculation → PAP tier assignment): see `reference/example.md`.
6
7	### 1. Attribute Architecture
8	- Orthogonality: Ensure every attribute is independent of every other attribute to allow for the estimation of causal effects for each component.
9	- Randomization of Order: Order attributes randomly at the respondent level (not the task level) to prevent "primacy" or "recency" effects while avoiding the cognitive overload of finding information in different orders across tasks (Stantcheva 2023). A specific logical flow may override this if theoretically required.
10	- D-Optimal Designs: Consider D-optimal or constrained randomization schemes rather than pure randomization. D-optimal designs choose the sets of administered conditions that maximize statistical power and may be preferable when the number of possible attribute combinations is large relative to the sample size (Auspurg & Hinz 2015; Stantcheva 2023).
11	- Attribute Density: Monitor for respondent fatigue. Stefanelli and Lukac (2020) cite evidence that conjoint results remain stable with up to 10 attributes; Bansak et al. (2018) find that response quality does not degrade with up to 30 tasks on MTurk, and Bansak et al. (2021, "Beyond the Breaking Point") extend this to the attribute dimension, reporting stability at many attributes. These are the canonical sources for the task- and attribute-count claims respectively. Still evaluate whether the complexity of the levels increases cognitive load beyond the attribute count alone.
12	- Nested/Constrained Randomization: Not all attributes need to be fully crossed. When ecological validity demands it, certain attribute levels can be linked or nested within other attributes (e.g., origin countries nested within policy domain). This is acceptable when: (a) the nesting is theoretically justified, (b) the primary attributes of interest remain fully independently randomized, and (c) the analyst acknowledges that nested attributes cannot be cleanly separated from their parent attribute. See Auspurg & Hinz (2015) on restricted randomization in factorial surveys.
13	- Attribute-Level Restrictions: Implausible combinations can be excluded when they would confuse respondents or produce artifactual responses, but this is a judgment call, not a mandate. Eye-tracking evidence from Bansak & Jenke (2025) shows that odd (incongruent or nonsensical) attribute combinations have minimal, inconsistent effects on respondent attention, search, and choice, so decisions to include or exclude them should be driven primarily by statistical, substantive, and theoretical considerations (e.g., whether the randomization distribution should reflect a real-world target distribution per De la Cuesta, Egami & Imai 2022) rather than by assumed cognitive-burden concerns. Document all restrictions in the pre-analysis plan.
14	- Medium-Level Specificity: Attribute levels should be concrete enough to be meaningful but not so specific that they introduce unintended confounds. Describe treatments at a "medium level of specificity" -- "fully described but not overly described" (Sniderman 2018). Avoid vague descriptions (e.g., "a policy that helps the economy") and overly narrow ones (e.g., "a $2.3B infrastructure bill for Route 95 in Pennsylvania").
15
16	### 2. Statistical Power and Error Logic
17	- Effective N (N_eff): Calculate sample size based on (Respondents $\times$ Tasks $\times$ Profiles). Throughout this section, N_eff refers to this effective number of profile evaluations. However, respondents and tasks are not interchangeable -- adding respondents improves precision more than adding tasks per respondent due to within-respondent correlation. When in doubt, prioritize more respondents over more tasks (Stefanelli and Lukac 2020).
18	- Closed-Form Formula: The standard error of an AMCE is approximately: SE = $\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y) \times L / N_{\text{eff}}}$, where $L$ is the number of levels for the attribute and N_eff is as defined above (Schuessler and Freitag 2020). This provides a quick diagnostic for whether precision is adequate.
19	- Interaction Power: Estimating interaction effects requires approximately twice the sample size needed for main AMCEs, in the canonical balanced two-level-by-two-level case; the exact multiplier scales with the number of levels on each interacting attribute. The standard error of an interaction coefficient is approximately $\sqrt{2}$ times the SE of the corresponding main effect in that balanced case (Schuessler and Freitag 2020). Budget accordingly when interaction hypotheses are confirmatory.
20	- Empirical AMCE Benchmarks: Typical AMCEs in published conjoint studies range from 0.02 to 0.10 (perce

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type