2,500 rated or chosen profiles from 250 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.
| Description | Slum-dwelling households in Khulna, Bangladesh compared hypothetical deposit products described by documentation requirement, service charge, linked facility, help desk and return type, in 5 choice sets of two products each, with a no-product option. 250 respondents, 2,500 profile rows; outcomes are the first-ranked option, the forced A/B choice and each profile's rank. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bari, M. A. (2025). Financial Inclusion Strategies Conjoint [Data set]. Mendeley Data. |
| Licence | CC BY 4.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.17632/mh7cwkn49t |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 250 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 2,500 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 45 |
| Topic | other |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | product service |
| Country | BD |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): fixed blocked design of 10 choice sets, 5 per respondent; alternative B always has High documentation and A never has the BDT60 charge, so combinations are not independent and levels are unequally frequent (e.g. Only Loan 750 of 2500 rows vs Loan and Safety Net Allowance 1750) |
| 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 | unknown (no question wording in the deposit); the option ranked first among product A, product B and no product [choice, opt-out allowed] |
|---|---|
| choice_forced | unknown (no question wording in the deposit); the preferred of products A and B (the authors' Internal Choice) [choice, forced] |
| rating_rank | unknown (no question wording in the deposit); rank of this product among product A, product B and no product [rating, 1 (most preferred) to 3 (least preferred)] |
attr_documentationattr_help_deskattr_linked_facilityattr_return_typeattr_service_chargechoicechoice_forcedcov_agecov_gender_codeidprofilerating_ranktask
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.
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("bari_2025_deposit_inclusion", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bari_2025_deposit_inclusion", source="conj")
@misc{https://doi.org/10.17632/mh7cwkn49t,
doi = {10.17632/MH7CWKN49T},
url = {https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/mh7cwkn49t},
author = {Md Abdul, Bari},
keywords = {Data Replication},
title = {Financial Inclusion Strategies Conjoint},
publisher = {Mendeley Data},
year = {2025}
}
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint_2 v1.4 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/hk97-wv30 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v1.4 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |