9,274 rated or chosen profiles from 1,201 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.
| Description | Paired conjoint on prioritizing accountability demands: 1,201 civil servants (600 UK Prolific, July 2019; 601 Dutch executive-agency staff, October 2019) chose in up to 4 tasks which of two stakeholders' demands to perform first; stakeholders varied expertise, type and likelihood of consequences for non-compliance, and previous experience. Outcome is a forced choice. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Aleksovska, M., Schillemans, T., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Management of multiple accountabilities through setting priorities: Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 132-146. |
| DOI | 10.1111/puar.13357 |
| Licence | CC BY-NC 4.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xt3-k5qc |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,201 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 9,274 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 4 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | public administration |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | GB, NL |
| Language shown | en, nl |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): profiles drawn at random from the levels; tasks where both profiles were identical were removed from the data (article note 2) |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.
Outcomes:
| choice | Two stakeholders have communicated demands to your organization. You have been asked to perform tasks to respond to both demands, however, you can only do one at a time, so you must decide which one to perform first. Which stakeholder's demand would you prioritize? [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_consequenceattr_consequence_likelihoodattr_expertiseattr_previous_experiencechoicecov_countrycov_organizationcov_recognizeidprofiletasktrial_choice_time_sec
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0 — non-commercial use only.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("aleksovska_2021_accountability_priority", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("aleksovska_2021_accountability_priority", source="conj")
@article{Aleksovska_2021, title={Management of Multiple Accountabilities Through Setting Priorities: Evidence from a<scp>Cross‐National</scp>Conjoint Experiment}, volume={82}, ISSN={1540-6210}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/puar.13357}, DOI={10.1111/puar.13357}, number={1}, journal={Public Administration Review}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Aleksovska, Marija and Schillemans, Thomas and Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan}, year={2021}, month=Apr, pages={132–146} }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |