IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v12y1984i4p379-389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of three methods of eliciting preference information

Author

Listed:
  • Rothermel, Mary Anne
  • Schilling, David A

Abstract

The study reported in this paper compared three methods of eliciting preference information from a decision maker and estimating weights with this information for use in a multiple objective decision making model. The design of the study included issues of implementing computerized interactive models vs more traditional question and answer techniques in the light of different decision models (in terms of level of complexity) and differing levels of decision maker experience. Results indicate that decision makers, regardless of prior exposure to computer terminals, are not intimidated by their use. Additionally, methods which required non-quantitative statements of preferences were preferred over techniques which requested numerical estimates of tradeoffs or marginal rates of substitution between objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Rothermel, Mary Anne & Schilling, David A, 1984. "A comparative study of three methods of eliciting preference information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 379-389.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:12:y:1984:i:4:p:379-389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(84)90074-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luque, Mariano & Miettinen, Kaisa & Eskelinen, Petri & Ruiz, Francisco, 2009. "Incorporating preference information in interactive reference point methods for multiobjective optimization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 450-462, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jomega:v:12:y:1984:i:4:p:379-389. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.