IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i3p458-d336587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Raquel González del Pozo

    (PRESAD Research Group, IMUVA, Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, Spain)

  • Luis C. Dias

    (CeBER, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, 3004-512 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • José Luis García-Lapresta

    (PRESAD Research Group, BORDA Research Unit, IMUVA, Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, Spain)

Abstract

Many decision problems manage linguistic information assessed through several ordered qualitative scales. In these contexts, the main problem arising is how to aggregate this qualitative information. In this paper, we present a multi-criteria decision-making procedure that ranks a set of alternatives assessed by means of a specific ordered qualitative scale for each criterion. These ordered qualitative scales can be non-uniform and be formed by a different number of linguistic terms. The proposed procedure follows an ordinal approach by means of the notion of ordinal proximity measure that assigns an ordinal degree of proximity to each pair of linguistic terms of the qualitative scales. To manage the ordinal degree of proximity from different ordered qualitative scales, we provide a homogenization process. We also introduce a stochastic approach to assess the robustness of the conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Raquel González del Pozo & Luis C. Dias & José Luis García-Lapresta, 2020. "Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:458-:d:336587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/3/458/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/3/458/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marichal, Jean-Luc & Roubens, Marc, 2000. "Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 641-650, August.
    2. Herrera, F. & Martinez, L. & Sanchez, P. J., 2005. "Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 115-132, October.
    3. Tamar Gadrich & Emil Bashkansky & Ričardas Zitikis, 2015. "Assessing variation: a unifying approach for all scales of measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1145-1167, May.
    4. García-Lapresta, José Luis & González del Pozo, Raquel, 2019. "An ordinal multi-criteria decision-making procedure under imprecise linguistic assessments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(1), pages 159-167.
    5. Solymosi, Tamas & Dombi, Jozsef, 1986. "A method for determining the weights of criteria: The centralized weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-41, July.
    6. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    7. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    8. Larichev, Oleg I., 2001. "Ranking multicriteria alternatives: The method ZAPROS III," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 550-558, June.
    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. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    2. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    3. Stephen P. Chambal & Jeffery D. Weir & Yucel R. Kahraman & Alex J. Gutman, 2011. "A Practical Procedure for Customizable One-Way Sensitivity Analysis in Additive Value Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 303-321, December.
    4. Angilella, Silvia & Greco, Salvatore & Lamantia, Fabio & Matarazzo, Benedetto, 2004. "Assessing non-additive utility for multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 734-744, November.
    5. Butler, John & Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James, 1997. "Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 531-546, December.
    6. Paula Sarabando & Luís C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2013. "Mediation with Incomplete Information: Approaches to Suggest Potential Agreements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 561-597, May.
    7. Leskinen, Pekka & Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Rank-based modelling of preferences in multi-criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 721-733, November.
    8. Angilella, Silvia & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2015. "Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 172-182.
    9. 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.
    10. Lahdelma, Risto & Salminen, Pekka, 2006. "Classifying efficient alternatives in SMAA using cross confidence factors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(1), pages 228-240, April.
    11. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    12. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    13. Madson Bruno da Silva Monte & Danielle Costa Morais, 2019. "A Decision Model for Identifying and Solving Problems in an Urban Water Supply System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(14), pages 4835-4848, November.
    14. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    15. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    16. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    18. Pereira, Miguel Alves & Figueira, José Rui & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2020. "Using a Choquet integral-based approach for incorporating decision-maker’s preference judgments in a Data Envelopment Analysis model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1016-1030.
    19. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    20. Vanacore, Amalia & Pellegrino, Maria Sole, 2021. "Testing inter-group ranking heterogeneity: do patient characteristics matter for prioritization of quality improvements in healthcare service?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(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:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:458-:d:336587. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.