IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v270y2018i1p314-327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inconsistency in the ordinal pairwise comparisons method with and without ties

Author

Listed:
  • Kułakowski, Konrad

Abstract

Comparing alternatives in pairs is a well-known method used to create ranking. Experts are asked to perform a series of binary comparisons and then, using mathematical methods, the final ranking is constructed. Experts conduct a series of single assessments, however, they may not always be consistent. The level of inconsistency among individual assessments is widely accepted as a measure of the ranking quality. The higher the ranking quality, the higher its credibility. One of the earliest and most widespread inconsistency indices is the consistency coefficient defined by Kendall and Babington Smith. In their work, the authors consider binary pairwise comparisons, i.e., those where the result of an individual comparison can only be better or worse.

Suggested Citation

  • Kułakowski, Konrad, 2018. "Inconsistency in the ordinal pairwise comparisons method with and without ties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 314-327.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:270:y:2018:i:1:p:314-327
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.03.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718302522
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.03.024?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. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    2. Mass A. & Bezembinder, T. & Wakker, P., 1996. "On solving intansitivities in repeated pairwise choices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 53-53, February.
    3. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    4. Matteo Brunelli & Luisa Canal & Michele Fedrizzi, 2013. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 493-509, December.
    5. Aupetit, Bernard & Genest, Christian, 1993. "On some useful properties of the Perron eigenvalue of a positive reciprocal matrix in the context of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 263-268, October.
    6. Salvatore Greco & Benedetto Matarazzo & Roman Słowiński, 2010. "Dominance-based Rough Set Approach to decision under uncertainty and time preference," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 41-75, April.
    7. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J., 2007. "The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 488-497, February.
    8. Konrad Kułakowski & Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska & Jarosław Wąs, 2015. "Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 529-543, July.
    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. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Vladimír Bureš & Jiří Cabal & Pavel Čech & Karel Mls & Daniela Ponce, 2020. "The Influence of Criteria Selection Method on Consistency of Pairwise Comparison," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Matteo Brunelli, 2017. "Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 248(1), pages 143-161, January.
    4. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    5. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    6. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    7. Paul Thaddeus Kazibudzki, 2016. "An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 525-544, September.
    8. Matteo Brunelli & Michele Fedrizzi, 2019. "A general formulation for some inconsistency indices of pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 155-169, March.
    9. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    10. Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Patrik Juhász & Sergii V. Kadenko & Vitaliy Tsyganok, 2023. "Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs with average degree approximately 3," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 783-807, July.
    11. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2024. "Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons and the Pareto dominance principle," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(1), pages 273-282.
    12. Jiří Mazurek, 2018. "Some notes on the properties of inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 27-42.
    13. Li, Kevin W. & Wang, Zhou-Jing & Tong, Xiayu, 2016. "Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 628-638.
    14. Ágoston, Kolos Csaba & Csató, László, 2022. "Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    15. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2020. "The Triads Geometric Consistency Index in AHP-Pairwise Comparison Matrices," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-17, June.
    16. László Csató, 2018. "Characterization of an inconsistency ranking for pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 261(1), pages 155-165, February.
    17. Liu, Fang & Zou, Shu-Cai & Li, Qing, 2020. "Deriving priorities from pairwise comparison matrices with a novel consistency index," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    18. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    19. Wen-Min Lu & Qian Long Kweh & Chung-Wei Wang, 2021. "Integration and application of rough sets and data envelopment analysis for assessments of the investment trusts industry," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 163-194, January.
    20. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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:ejores:v:270:y:2018:i:1:p:314-327. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.