1. Is this an appropriate study for ACBC? Appropriate studies typically involve about five or more attributes. Studies with very few attributes (such as Brand-Package-Price studies) are probably more appropriately studied using standard CBC.
2. Have you taken the survey yourself multiple times, ensuring that the software can generate the requested number of product concepts to be screened without producing a warning in the "error log" in the /admin folder (indicating that it had problems generating the requested design)?
3. Have you examined the level representation frequency for individual respondent test records you generate (View/Edit dialog within the Data Management area)? Does each non-BYO level (taken into the respondent's ACBC questionnaire) occur at a minimum of 2 times (3 times, preferably)?
4. Does each respondent evaluate no more than about 7 levels per attribute? If more than about 7 levels per attribute are being studied, then a constructed list should be used and respondents should evaluate the most preferred/relevant levels.
5. If you are studying a large number of attributes or levels per attribute (such that using constructed lists to discard levels and attributes from consideration within the ACBC survey is necessary), is your sample size sufficient to stabilize the parameters across the full list of attributes and levels? Are you willing to assume that discarded attributes are entirely unimportant to the respondent?
6. When you take the questionnaire, do the Unacceptables and Must-Have questions properly identify (using correct "at least" or "at most" phrasing) the levels you have consistently selected or rejected? (This confirms you set the correct worst to best or best to worst attribute direction).
7. Have you analyzed the data from your practice questionnaires, making sure that the computed part-worths reflect the preferences you expressed in the questionnaire?
8. Have you asked colleagues to take the survey? Have you debriefed them regarding their experiences and analyzed their data? Were any sections/instructions confusing? Do the computed part-worth utilities reasonably reflect their individual preferences?
9. Have you fielded the study (a "soft launch") among a few target respondents, examining the same issues as directly above?
