The authors compare nine metric conjoint segmentation methods. Four me
thods concern two-stage procedures in which the estimation of conjoint
models and the partitioning of the sample are performed separately; i
n five, the estimation and segmentation stages are integrated. The met
hods are compared conceptually and empirically in a Monte Carlo study.
The empirical comparison pertains to measures that assess parameter r
ecovery, goodness-of-fit, and predictive accuracy. Most of the integra
ted conjoint segmentation methods outperform the two-stage clustering
procedures under the conditions specified, in which a latent class pro
cedure performs best. However, differences in predictive accuracy were
small. The effects of degrees of freedom for error and the number of
respondents were considerably smaller than those of number of segments
, error variance, and within-segment heterogeneity.