IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v153y2004i2p433-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimally biased weight determination in personnel selection

Author

Listed:
  • Jessop, Alan

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessop, Alan, 2004. "Minimally biased weight determination in personnel selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 433-444, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:153:y:2004:i:2:p:433-444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(03)00163-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capaldo, Guido & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2001. "Applying fuzzy logic to personnel assessment: a case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 585-597, December.
    2. Spyridakos, A. & Siskos, Y. & Yannacopoulos, D. & Skouris, A., 2001. "Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 375-387, April.
    3. Timmermans, Danielle & Vlek, Charles, 1996. "Effects on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 158-170, November.
    4. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    5. A Jessop, 2002. "Prioritisation of an IT budget within a local authority," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(1), pages 36-46, January.
    6. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    2. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    3. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Bruno Ricca & Massimiliano Ferrara & Salvatore Loprevite, 2023. "Searching for an effective accounting-based score of firm performance: a comparative study between different synthesis techniques," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3575-3602, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    2. Aron Larsson & Mona Riabacke & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1299-1330, November.
    3. Tofallis, C., 1996. "Improving discernment in DEA using profiling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 361-364, June.
    4. J. Granat & M. Makowski, 1998. "ISAAP - Interactive Specification and Analysis of Aspiration-Based Preferences," Working Papers ir98052, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    5. Canós, L. & Liern, V., 2008. "Soft computing-based aggregation methods for human resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(3), pages 669-681, September.
    6. Matthew D. Wood & Kenton Plourde & Sabrina Larkin & Peter P. Egeghy & Antony J. Williams & Valerie Zemba & Igor Linkov & Daniel A. Vallero, 2020. "Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure‐Based Chemical Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 83-96, January.
    7. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    8. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    9. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    11. Haines, Linda M., 1998. "A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements. (I). Distributions on feasible regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 112-125, October.
    12. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    13. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    14. Luque, Mariano & Miettinen, Kaisa & Eskelinen, Petri & Ruiz, Francisco, 2009. "Incorporating preference information in interactive reference point methods for multiobjective optimization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 450-462, April.
    15. Lu, Hsi-Peng & Yu, Huei-Ju & Lu, Simon S. K., 2001. "The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 649-663, June.
    16. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    17. Tom Pape, 2020. "Prioritising data items for business analytics: Framework and application to human resources," Papers 2012.13813, arXiv.org.
    18. Tim Schröder & Lars-Peter Lauven & Beatriz Beyer & Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2019. "Using PROMETHEE to assess bioenergy pathways," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-309, June.
    19. Parra-López, Carlos & Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Sayadi, Samir & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Digital transformation of the agrifood system: Quantifying the conditioning factors to inform policy planning in the olive sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    20. Eun-Sung Chung & Kwangjae Won & Yeonjoo Kim & Hosun Lee, 2014. "Water Resource Vulnerability Characteristics by District’s Population Size in a Changing Climate Using Subjective and Objective Weights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-17, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:153:y:2004:i:2:p:433-444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.