The Value of Accreditation: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment among Business Students

Last registered on October 03, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Value of Accreditation: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment among Business Students
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016917
Initial registration date
October 01, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 03, 2025, 10:44 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Enzo Peeters
Affiliation
KU Leuven
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Kristof De Witte
PI Affiliation
KU Leuven
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-11-01
End date
2026-03-01
Keywords
Education, Welfare
Additional Keywords
Economics of higher education
JEL code(s)
I23, I26, I28
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The value of international business school accreditations (AACSB, AMBA, EQUIS) for prospective students and universities remains insufficiently understood. Accreditation is often regarded as a signal of quality, especially for international students who face limited information when evaluating universities. These accreditations, awarded after extensive evaluation, can serve as a seal of excellence. Yet, evidence on whether they significantly shape students’ choices is inconclusive. This study addresses this gap using a discrete choice experiment to quantify how students value different forms of accreditation and the extent to which accreditation affects their decision-making. From these data, we estimate students’ willingness to pay for accreditation and, combined with enrollment figures, provide a rough cost–benefit assessment for universities.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
De Witte, Kristof and Enzo Peeters. 2025. "The Value of Accreditation: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment among Business Students." AEA RCT Registry. October 03. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16917-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We will conduct two experiments: i) a discrete choice experiment with the goal of increasing our understanding of the valuation business students attach to accreditations which will be answered by all respondents, and ii) an information experiment concerning the added value of attending a highly accredited business school, to further increase our understanding of how important an accreditation is to a student. The information experiment will be filled in by half of our respondents, with the other half functioning as a control group.
Intervention Start Date
2025-11-01
Intervention End Date
2026-03-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
A utility- and willingness-to-pay estimate of accreditation (discrete choice experiment) and a measure of the valuation of certain career characteristics from the information experiment.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
n.a.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
n.a.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
n.a.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The method used is the discrete choice experiment (DCE). A DCE is considered a robust research method used to decipher explanatory preferences by presenting individuals with a series of hypothetical alternatives, whereby the respondent can choose an alternative by considering its various characteristics (attributes).

Each respondent will be presented with a series of choice sets, in which they must choose between two hypothetical alternatives. The choice is made on the basis of the different characteristics of the alternatives, with the respondent choosing the alternative that they prefer. In total, the respondent will answer eight choice sets.

The data we obtain will be analysed in a second phase of the study using econometric models. We will estimate the model using a known model (“conditional logit”). For verification purposes and to guarantee external validity, we will expand our analysis with an additional model (“mixed logit”). This extra model will also help us to overcome some of the limitations of the basic model.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We will offer three blocks of eight choice sets each. Each respondent will randomly be assigned to either one of the three blocks. Respondents will also be randomly assigned to either a treatment group or a control group in the information experiment.
Randomization Unit
Randomization at individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Estimated sample size: between 500-1000 business students.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Estimated sample size: between 500-1000 business students.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Estimated sample size: between 500-1000 business students.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
n.a.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Toetsing Privacy en Ethiek (PRET)
IRB Approval Date
2025-10-01
IRB Approval Number
G-2025-9722
Analysis Plan