IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/operea/v20y2020i4d10.1007_s12351-018-0405-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple criteria performance evaluation of YouTube mathematical educational videos by IS-TOPSIS

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Margarita Acuña-Soto

    (CINVESTAV - Instituto Politécnico Nacional)

  • Vicente Liern

    (Universidad de Valencia)

  • Blanca Pérez-Gladish

    (Universidad de Oviedo)

Abstract

In this work, a TOPSIS-based approach is proposed based on the idea of ideal similarity. It considers the ideal solution not necessarily related to the optimum values of the decision criteria, but to any values between the minimum and maximum values of the criteria ranges. The proposed method allows the consideration of one or several decision makers; different types of data (single numerical values, intervals or linguistic variables); different normalization functions describing the importance given by the decision makers to the deviation of alternatives from the ideal solution and different weighting schemes. The procedure also allows the decision maker to decide how much information about the intervals he is willing to take into account (e.g. the expected value, the extremes of the interval or the entire set of values in the intervals). In order to illustrate the practical applicability of the approach we include a real example consisting of the ranking of mathematical educational videos based on six didactical dimensions. The rating of educational videos is of great interest for educators due to their high popularity in Internet, especially in platforms as You Tube which has become one of the most used sources of information nowadays.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Margarita Acuña-Soto & Vicente Liern & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2020. "Multiple criteria performance evaluation of YouTube mathematical educational videos by IS-TOPSIS," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 2017-2039, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:operea:v:20:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s12351-018-0405-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s12351-018-0405-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12351-018-0405-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12351-018-0405-2?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    2. Khademi-Zare, Hassan & Zarei, Mahnaz & Sadeghieh, Ahmad & Saleh Owlia, Mohammad, 2010. "Ranking the strategic actions of Iran mobile cellular telecommunication using two models of fuzzy QFD," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 747-759, December.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    4. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Olga Blasco-Blasco & Marina Liern-García & Aarón López-García & Sandra E. Parada-Rico, 2021. "An Academic Performance Indicator Using Flexible Multi-Criteria Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Andréia C. Müller & Jaime Gil-Lafuente & Joan Carles Ferrer-Comalat, 2024. "Colour Choice as a Strategic Instrument in Neuromarketing," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.

    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. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    3. Dariusz Kacprzak, 2024. "A new extension of the EDAS method in a fuzzy environment for group decision-making," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 51(3), pages 263-277, September.
    4. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    5. Mar Llorente-Marrón & Montserrat Díaz-Fernández & Paz Méndez-Rodríguez, 2022. "Ranking fertility predictors in Spain: a multicriteria decision approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 771-798, April.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    7. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    8. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    9. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    10. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    11. Mahmut Baydaş & Orhan Emre Elma & Željko Stević, 2024. "Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, December.
    12. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    13. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    14. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    15. József Dombi & Tamás Jónás, 2024. "Learning the weights using attribute order information for multi-criteria decision making tasks," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(4), pages 2379-2409, December.
    16. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Marina Polykarpou & Flora Karathanasi & Takvor Soukissian & Vasiliki Loukaidi & Ioannis Kyriakides, 2023. "A Novel Data-Driven Tool Based on Non-Linear Optimization for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Montlaur, Adeline & Delgado, Luis & Prats, Xavier, 2023. "Domain-driven multiple-criteria decision-making for flight crew decision support tool," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. Weibing Sun & Fu Zhang & Shuya Tai & Jinkui Wu & Yaqiong Mu, 2021. "Study on Glacial Tourism Exploitation in the Dagu Glacier Scenic Spot Based on the AHP–ASEB Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.

    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:spr:operea:v:20:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s12351-018-0405-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.