Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement
This paper compares four weighting methods in multiattribute utility measurement: the ratio method, the swing weighting method, the tradeoff method and the pricing out method. 200 subjects used these methods to weight attributes for evaluating nuclear waste repository sites in the United States. The weighting methods were compared with respect to their internal consistency, convergent validity, and external validity. Internal consistency was measured by the degree to which ordinal and cardinal or ratio responses agreed within the same weighting method. Convergent validity was measured by the degree of agreement between the weights elicited with different methods. External validity was determined by the degree to which weights elicited in this experiment agreed with weights that were elicited with managers of the Department of Energy. In terms of internal consistency, the tradeoff method fared worst. In terms of convergent validity, the pricing out method turned out to be an outlier. In terms of external validity, the pricing out method showed the best results. While the ratio and swing methods are quite consistent and show a fair amount of convergent validity, their external validity problems cast doubt on their usefulness. The main recommendation for applications is to improve the internal consistency of the tradeoff method by careful interactive elicitation and to use it in conjunction with the pricing out method to enhance its external validity.
Volume (Year): 37 (1991)
Issue (Month): 12 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:37:y:1991:i:12:p:1603-1619. 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: (Mirko Janc)
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.