Oo, B L (2016) On the external validity of construction bidding experiment. Construction Economics and Building, 16(1), pp. 64-75. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The external validity of experimental studies and in particular, the subject pool effects have been much debated among researchers. The common objections are that the use of student as experimental subjects is invalid as they are likely to be unrepresentative. This paper addresses this methodological aspect in building economics research. It compares the bidding behavioural patterns of experienced construction executives (professionals) and student subjects through replication of a bidding experiment that aimed at testing theories. The results show that the student subjects' bidding behavourial patterns, in terms of decision to bid and mark-up decision, are sufficiently similar to that of the professionals. This suggests that the subject pool per se is not a threat to the external validity of the bidding experiment. In addition, the demonstrated practicality of an experimental approach in testing theories should lead to more use of experimental studies with student subjects in building economics research. It is suggested that experimental and field findings should be seen as complementary in building economics research, as advocated in social sciences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction bidding; experiment; external validity; methodological issue |
| Index terms: | bidding, executive, validity, mark-up, building economics, social science, testing, decision to bid, experiment |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, evaluation and assessment methods, price determination, data collection methods, professional practice, cost management, bidding, practitioner |
| Topics: | Site Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here