IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v156y2021i2d10.1007_s11205-020-02513-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pooling Rankings to Obtain a Set of Scores for a Composite Indicator of Erasmus + Mobility Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Luigi Fabbris

    (University of Padova)

  • Manuela Scioni

    (University of Padova)

Abstract

In this paper, we study how to assign weights to a set of evaluations obtained at the end of an international mobility experience in order to aggregate them into a composite indicator. The mobility experience was evaluated by three categories of actor: the participant; the school or company sending the participant; and the school or company hosting the participant. We estimated the weights starting from the assessors’ mutual evaluations of the beneficiaries of the mobility experiences. In particular, the aim of the paper was to compare two strategies for estimating the weights: (1) a weighted function of the univariate rank distribution of frequencies; and (2) the normalised elements of the first eigenvector of the dominance matrix computed by mediating the actors’ dominance matrices derived from the rankings of mobility beneficiaries. Variants of the two strategies were also introduced. Even though each strategy had different assumptions, the analyses produced several important findings. First, the optimum weighting model depends on the loss function used to evaluate the quality of the results. In particular a between-ranking variability function favours both univariate and unweighted multivariate models, while a bias-based function favours weighted multivariate models. Second, in both univariate and multivariate analyses, the application of rank-order-centroid and rank-reciprocal rules give more accurate results than both linear and exponential rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Luigi Fabbris & Manuela Scioni, 2021. "Pooling Rankings to Obtain a Set of Scores for a Composite Indicator of Erasmus + Mobility Effects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 481-497, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:156:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02513-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02513-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-020-02513-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-020-02513-6?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
    ---><---

    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. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 2002. "Voting procedures," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 173-236, Elsevier.
    2. Enrico Ciavolino & Maurizio Carpita, 2015. "The GME estimator for the regression model with a composite indicator as explanatory variable," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 955-965, May.
    3. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    4. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    5. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    6. Peyton Young, 1995. "Optimal Voting Rules," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 51-64, Winter.
    7. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Peña, Teresa, 2013. "Aggregating preferences rankings with variable weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 348-355.
    8. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    9. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    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. Krzysztof Kafarski & Jan K. Kazak, 2022. "Erasmus Staff Mobility in the Building of a European Network: The Case of a Central European University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, April.

    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. Soltanifar, Mehdi & Shahghobadi, Saeid, 2013. "Selecting a benevolent secondary goal model in data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency evaluation by a voting model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 65-74.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. László Csató, 2023. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 526-545, May.
    4. Yeawon Yoo & Adolfo R. Escobedo, 2021. "A New Binary Programming Formulation and Social Choice Property for Kemeny Rank Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 296-320, December.
    5. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2019. "A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 391-393.
    6. Paolo Viappiani, 2024. "Volumetric Aggregation Methods for Scoring Rules with Unknown Weights," Post-Print hal-04440153, HAL.
    7. Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    8. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    9. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Ebrahimnejad, Ali & Tavana, Madjid & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2016. "An integrated data envelopment analysis and simulation method for group consensus ranking," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-17.
    11. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    12. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1997. "A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 392-397, January.
    13. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    14. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2023. "Uncertainty Analysis in Group Decisions through Interval Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 807-833, August.
    15. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    16. Mehmet Ali Dereli & Emre Tercan, 2021. "Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3438-3457, March.
    17. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2016. "Ranking Candidates Through Convex Sequences of Variable Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 567-584, May.
    18. Bonifacio Llamazares & Teresa Peña, 2015. "Positional Voting Systems Generated by Cumulative Standings Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 777-801, September.
    19. Paolo Viappiani, 2020. "Robust winner determination in positional scoring rules with uncertain weights," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 323-367, April.
    20. Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2023. "Foundations of operations research: From linear programming to data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1069-1080.

    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:spr:soinre:v:156:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02513-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.