IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v34y1988i2p186-199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reliability of Subjective Probabilities Obtained Through Decomposition

Author

Listed:
  • H. V. Ravinder

    (Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131)

  • Don N. Kleinmuntz

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • James S. Dyer

    (Department of Management, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712)

Abstract

The use of decomposition as a procedure for improving the consistency of subjective probability encoding is discussed. Using a psychometric measurement model, an expression is developed that describes the random error associated with decomposition estimates as a function of characteristics of the component assessments. Decomposition is compared to direct assessment in terms of the percent change in measurement error that can be attributed to the use of decomposition. Potential benefits of decomposition are specified and recommendations made on how to utilize decomposition as an approach for error control.

Suggested Citation

  • H. V. Ravinder & Don N. Kleinmuntz & James S. Dyer, 1988. "The Reliability of Subjective Probabilities Obtained Through Decomposition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 186-199, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:34:y:1988:i:2:p:186-199
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.34.2.186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.2.186
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.34.2.186?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gary J. Summers, 2021. "Friction and Decision Rules in Portfolio Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 101-120, June.
    2. Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2005. "Additivity of Information Value in Two‐Act Linear Loss Decisions with Normal Priors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 351-359, April.
    3. Mehrez, A. & Yuan, Y. & Gafni, A., 1995. "The search for information -- A patient perspective on multiple opinions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 244-262, September.
    4. Chen, Clara Xiaoling & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Zhou, Flora H., 2015. "The effects of forecast type and performance-based incentives on the quality of management forecasts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 8-18.
    5. Grant Statham & Pascal Haegeli & Ethan Greene & Karl Birkeland & Clair Israelson & Bruce Tremper & Chris Stethem & Bruce McMahon & Brad White & John Kelly, 2018. "A conceptual model of avalanche hazard," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(2), pages 663-691, January.
    6. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    7. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Gary McClelland, 2002. "Measurement Error, Skewness, and Risk Analysis: Coping with the Long Tail of the Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 277-290, April.
    8. Ali Mosleh & Vicki Bier, 1992. "On Decomposition and Aggregation Error in Estimation: Some Basic Principles and Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 203-214, June.
    9. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    10. Saurabh Bansal & Genaro J. Gutierrez & John R. Keiser, 2017. "Using Experts’ Noisy Quantile Judgments to Quantify Risks: Theory and Application to Agribusiness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1115-1130, October.
    11. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    12. Abraham Mehrez & Amiram Gafni, 1989. "Quality-adjusted Life Years, Utility Theory, and Healthy-years Equivalents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 142-149, June.
    13. Jason Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell, 2011. "A Comparative Analysis of PRA and Intelligent Adversary Methods for Counterterrorism Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1488-1510, September.
    14. Robert T. Clemen & Gregory W. Fischer & Robert L. Winkler, 2000. "Assessing Dependence: Some Experimental Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(8), pages 1100-1115, August.
    15. Saurabh Bansal & Genaro J. Gutierrez, 2020. "Estimating Uncertainties Using Judgmental Forecasts with Expert Heterogeneity," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 363-380, March.
    16. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    17. Morera, Osvaldo F. & Budescu, David V., 1998. "A Psychometric Analysis of the "Divide and Conquer" Principle in Multicriteria Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 187-206, September.
    18. Robert T. Clemen & Canan Ulu, 2008. "Interior Additivity and Subjective Probability Assessment of Continuous Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 835-851, April.
    19. Jason R. W. Merrick & Philip Leclerc, 2016. "Modeling Adversaries in Counterterrorism Decisions Using Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 681-693, April.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:34:y:1988:i:2:p:186-199. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.