IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v29y2001i6p553-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best

Author

Listed:
  • Bottomley, Paul A.
  • Doyle, John R.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:6:p:553-560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(01)00044-5
    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. Andrew Comrey, 1950. "A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 15(3), pages 317-325, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. " Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 411-454, March.
    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. Parra-Lopez, Carlos & Groot, J.C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, W.A.H., 2008. "Exploring sustainable technical alternatives for Dutch dairy systems by integrating agro-economic modelling and public preferences assessment," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44253, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. 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.
    3. Parra-López, Carlos & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, Walter A.H., 2008. "Integrating public demands into model-based design for multifunctional agriculture: An application to intensive Dutch dairy landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 538-551, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    6. Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-Lopez, Carlos & Sayadi, Samir & Hinojosa-Rodriguez, Ascension, 2011. "Multifunctional Impacts of the Olive Farming Practices in Andalusia, Spain: An Analytic Network Approach," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114319, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-López, Carlos & Hinojosa-Rodríguez, Ascensión & Sayadi, Samir, 2014. "Farm-level multifunctionality associated with farming techniques in olive growing: An integrated modeling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-114.
    8. repec:spr:annopr:v:245:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-014-1657-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. repec:spr:waterr:v:32:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1833-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:eee:jomega:v:75:y:2018:i:c:p:154-164 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:eee:jomega:v:71:y:2017:i:c:p:93-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Romero, C. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2006. "Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 640-658, June.
    14. repec:spr:annopr:v:259:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-017-2519-y is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    17. Fernadez-Tirado, Francisca & Parra-Lopez, Carlos, 2008. "Prioritizing objectives to evaluate the environmental, economic and social impacts of biofuel in Spain," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44117, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Carnero, María Carmen & Oliveira, Mónica Duarte, 2012. "A multi-criteria model for auditing a Predictive Maintenance Programme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 381-393.
    19. Jessop, Alan, 2004. "Minimally biased weight determination in personnel selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 433-444, March.

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.