IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v130y2025ics0305048324001403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study on precision of direct evaluations, the Pairwise Comparisons Method and the Best-Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • Cavallo, Bice
  • Ishizaka, Alessio

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to design, carry out and analyze an experiment with over 100 respondents to measure the precision of the respondents when they compare (by evaluation) the areas of nine geometric figures and five distances between cities by using direct evaluations, Pairwise Comparisons Method and Best-Worst Method. The outcomes of the experiment indicate that the direct evaluations are the most imprecise and that there is not statistically significant difference between Best-Worst Method and Pairwise Comparisons Method.

Suggested Citation

  • Cavallo, Bice & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2025. "A comparative study on precision of direct evaluations, the Pairwise Comparisons Method and the Best-Worst Method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:130:y:2025:i:c:s0305048324001403
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2024.103175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048324001403
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103175?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.

    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:130:y:2025:i:c:s0305048324001403. 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.