IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijores/v38y2020i1p70-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis between LINMAP, paired comparison method and naturalistic ranking in different data display contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Hanane Taffahi
  • David Claudio

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis between two widely used decision-making methods, LINMAP and paired comparison method (PCM), using three different judging contexts. Decision makers ranked alternatives (for LINMAP) and criteria (for PCM) for contexts involving quantitative data only, qualitative data only, and a mix between the two. Attribute weights were calculated and final rankings of alternatives were deducted and compared to a naturalistic ranking of alternatives by the decision makers. LINMAP was found to be the closest match to a naturalistic decision-making. It was also found that incorporating qualitative data or a mixture between qualitative and quantitative data in multi-attribute decision-making problems was more consistent with the naturalistic ranking of alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanane Taffahi & David Claudio, 2020. "A comparative analysis between LINMAP, paired comparison method and naturalistic ranking in different data display contexts," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 70-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijores:v:38:y:2020:i:1:p:70-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=106361
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:ids:ijores:v:38:y:2020:i:1:p:70-81. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=170 .

    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.