IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v29y2001i6p553-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best

Author

Listed:
  • Bottomley, Paul A.
  • Doyle, John R.

Abstract

This paper compares the properties and performance of three weight elicitation methods. It is in effect a "second round contest" in which the Bottomley et al. (2000) champion, direct rating (DR), locks horns with two new challengers. People using DR rate each attribute in turn on a scale of 0-100, whilst people using Max100 first assign to the most important attribute(s) a rating of 100, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them. People using Min10 first assign the least important attribute(s) a rating of 10, and then rate the other attributes relative to it/them. The weights produced by Max100 were somewhat more test-retest reliable than DR. Both methods were considerably more reliable than Min10. Using people's test-retest data as attribute weights on simulated alternative values in a multi-attribute choice scenario, the same alternative would be chosen on 91% of occasions using Max100, 87% of occasions using DR, but only 75% of occasions using Min10. Moreover, the three methods are shown to have very distinct "signatures", that is profiles relating weights to rank position. Finally, people actually preferred using Max100 and DR rather than Min10, an important pragmatic consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:6:p:553-560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(01)00044-5
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Comrey, 1950. "A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 15(3), pages 317-325, September.
    2. Sujan, Mita, 1985. "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(1), pages 31-46, June.
    3. Leon, Orfelio G., 1997. "On the Death of SMART and the Birth of GRAPA," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 249-262, September.
    4. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 411-454, March.
    5. Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
    6. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    8. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    9. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    10. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    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. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    3. Scholz, Michael & Dorner, Verena & Schryen, Guido & Benlian, Alexander, 2017. "A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 205-215.
    4. Robin L. Dillon & Vicki M. Bier & Richard Sheffield John & Abdullah Althenayyan, 2023. "Closing the Gap Between Decision Analysis and Policy Analysts Before the Next Pandemic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 109-132, June.
    5. Miettinen, Pauli & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1997. "How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 279-294, October.
    6. Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
    7. Poyhonen, Mari & Vrolijk, Hans & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 216-227, October.
    8. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    9. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    10. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    11. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    12. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    13. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    14. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    15. Rong Li & Amiya K. Basu, 2020. "Pricing Strategy for GM Food: Impact of Consumer Attitude Heterogeneity and GMO Food Labelling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 463-474, August.
    16. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    17. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    18. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    19. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    20. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.

    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:29:y:2001:i:6:p:553-560. 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/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.