A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best
This paper compares the properties and performance of three weight elicitation methods. It is in effect a "second round contest" in which the Bottomley et al. (2000) champion, direct rating (DR), locks horns with two new challengers. People using DR rate each attribute in turn on a scale of 0-100, whilst people using Max100 first assign to the most important attribute(s) a rating of 100, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them. People using Min10 first assign the least important attribute(s) a rating of 10, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them. The weights produced by Max100 were somewhat more test-retest reliable than DR. Both methods were considerably more reliable than Min10. Using people's test-retest data as attribute weights on simulated alternative values in a multi-attribute choice scenario, the same alternative would be chosen on 91% of occasions using Max100, 87% of occasions using DR, but only 75% of occasions using Min10. Moreover, the three methods are shown to have very distinct "signatures", that is profiles relating weights to rank position. Finally, people actually preferred using Max100 and DR rather than Min10, an important pragmatic consideration.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 29 (2001)
Issue (Month): 6 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
- Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. " Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 411-54, March.
- Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
- Sujan, Mita, 1985. " Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 31-46, June.
- Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
- Leon, Orfelio G., 1997. "On the Death of SMART and the Birth of GRAPA," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 249-262, September.
- Andrew Comrey, 1950. "A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 15(3), pages 317-325, September.
- Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
- Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:6:p:553-560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.