IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v46y2000i8p1100-1115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Dependence: Some Experimental Results

Author

Listed:
  • Robert T. Clemen

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120)

  • Gregory W. Fischer

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120)

  • Robert L. Winkler

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120)

Abstract

Constructing decision- and risk-analysis probability models often requires measures of dependence among variables. Although data are sometimes available to estimate such measures, in many applications they must be obtained by means of subjective judgment by experts. We discuss two experimental studies that compare the accuracy of six different methods for assessing dependence. Our results lead to several conclusions: First, simply asking experts to report a correlation is a reasonable approach. Direct estimation is more accurate than the other methods studied, is not prone to mathematically inconsistent responses (as are some other measures), and is judged to be less difficult than alternate methods. In addition, directly assessed correlations showed less variability than the correlations derived from other assessment methods. Our results also show that experience with the variables can improve performance somewhat, as can training in a given assessment method. Finally, if a judge uses several different assessment methods, an average of the resulting estimates can also lead to better performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert T. Clemen & Gregory W. Fischer & Robert L. Winkler, 2000. "Assessing Dependence: Some Experimental Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(8), pages 1100-1115, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:8:p:1100-1115
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1100.12023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1100.12023
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.46.8.1100.12023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohamed N. Jouini & Robert T. Clemen, 1996. "Copula Models for Aggregating Expert Opinions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(3), pages 444-457, June.
    2. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 427-442, April.
    3. Robert L. Winkler & Thomas S. Wallsten & Ronald G. Whitfield & Harvey M. Richmond & Stanley R. Hayes & Arlene S. Rosenbaum, 1995. "An Assessment of the Risk of Chronic Lung Injury Attributable to Long-Term Ozone Exposure," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 19-28, February.
    4. Robert T. Clemen & Terence Reilly, 1999. "Correlations and Copulas for Decision and Risk Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 208-224, February.
    5. Pechmann, Cornelia & Ratneshwar, S, 1992. "Consumer Covariation Judgments: Theory or Data Driven?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(3), pages 373-386, December.
    6. H. V. Ravinder & Don N. Kleinmuntz & James S. Dyer, 1988. "The Reliability of Subjective Probabilities Obtained Through Decomposition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 186-199, February.
    7. Andrew E. Smith & P. Barry Ryan & John S. Evans, 1992. "The Effect of Neglecting Correlations When Propagating Uncertainty and Estimating the Population Distribution of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 467-474, December.
    8. Spyros Makridakis & Robert L. Winkler, 1983. "Averages of Forecasts: Some Empirical Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(9), pages 987-996, September.
    9. Edward Frees & Emiliano Valdez, 1998. "Understanding Relationships Using Copulas," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    2. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    3. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    4. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    5. Robert T. Clemen & Terence Reilly, 1999. "Correlations and Copulas for Decision and Risk Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 208-224, February.
    6. Tianyang Wang & James S. Dyer, 2012. "A Copulas-Based Approach to Modeling Dependence in Decision Trees," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 225-242, February.
    7. Charles N. Haas, 1999. "On Modeling Correlated Random Variables in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1205-1214, December.
    8. Jason R. W. Merrick & J. Rene van Dorp & Amita Singh, 2005. "Analysis of Correlated Expert Judgments from Extended Pairwise Comparisons," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 17-29, March.
    9. Luis V. Montiel & J. Eric Bickel, 2012. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Decision Making with Partial Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 329-347, December.
    10. Plischke, Elmar & Borgonovo, Emanuele, 2019. "Copula theory and probabilistic sensitivity analysis: Is there a connection?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 1046-1059.
    11. Benoumechiara Nazih & Bousquet Nicolas & Michel Bertrand & Saint-Pierre Philippe, 2020. "Detecting and modeling critical dependence structures between random inputs of computer models," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 263-297, January.
    12. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    13. Benoumechiara Nazih & Bousquet Nicolas & Michel Bertrand & Saint-Pierre Philippe, 2020. "Detecting and modeling critical dependence structures between random inputs of computer models," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 263-297, January.
    14. Gary J. Summers, 2021. "Friction and Decision Rules in Portfolio Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 101-120, June.
    15. Durante Fabrizio & Puccetti Giovanni & Scherer Matthias & Vanduffel Steven, 2017. "My introduction to copulas: An interview with Roger Nelsen," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 88-98, January.
    16. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    17. Stewart, Thomas R. & Roebber, Paul J. & Bosart, Lance F., 1997. "The Importance of the Task in Analyzing Expert Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 205-219, March.
    18. MICHIELS, Frederik & DE SCHEPPER, Ann, 2007. "A copula test space model: How to avoid the wrong copula choice," Working Papers 2007027, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    20. Genest, Christian & Rémillard, Bruno & Beaudoin, David, 2009. "Goodness-of-fit tests for copulas: A review and a power study," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 199-213, April.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:8:p:1100-1115. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.