IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v1y2008i2p127-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Weight Elicitation Techniques in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

Author

Listed:
  • Janine Til
  • James Dolan
  • Anne Stiggelbout
  • Karin Groothuis
  • Maarten IJzerman

Abstract

Objective: To test the applicability of multi-criteria decision analysis preference elicitation techniques in cognitively impaired individuals. Method: A convenience sample of 16 cognitively impaired subjects and 12 healthy controls was asked to participate in a small pilot study. The subjects determined the relative importance of four decision criteria using five different weight elicitation techniques, namely simple multi-attribute rating technique, simple multi-attribute rating technique using swing weights, Kepner-Tregoe weighting, the analytical hierarchical process, and conjoint analysis. Results: Conjoint analysis was judged to be the easiest method for weight elicitation in the control group (Z=10.00; p=0.04), while no significant differences in difficulty rating between methods was found in cognitively impaired subjects. Conjoint analysis elicitates weights and rankings significantly different from other methods. Subjectively, cognitively impaired subjects were positive about the use of the weight elicitation techniques. However, it seems the use of swing weights can result in the employment of shortcut strategies. Conclusion: The results of this pilot study suggest that individuals with mild cognitive impairment are willing and able to use multi-criteria elicitation methods to determine criteria weights in a decision context, although no preference for a method was found. The same methodologic and practical issues can be identified in cognitively impaired individuals as in healthy controls and the choice of method is mostly determined by the decision context. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Janine Til & James Dolan & Anne Stiggelbout & Karin Groothuis & Maarten IJzerman, 2008. "The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Weight Elicitation Techniques in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(2), pages 127-135, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:2:p:127-135
    DOI: 10.2165/01312067-200801020-00008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/01312067-200801020-00008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/01312067-200801020-00008?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. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    2. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    3. Williams, Michael L. & Dennis, Alan R. & Stam, Antonie & Aronson, Jay E., 2007. "The impact of DSS use and information load on errors and decision quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 468-481, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    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. Srivastava, Joydeep & Connolly, Terry & Beach, Lee Roy, 1995. "Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 112-116, July.
    8. James G. Dolan, 1995. "Are Patients Capable of Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Willing to Use It to Help Make Clinical Decisions?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(1), pages 76-80, February.
    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. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Marjan S. Jalali & Paulo Bento & Carla S. E. Marques & João J. M. Ferreira, 2017. "Enhancing individual entrepreneurial orientation measurement using a metacognitive decision making-based framework," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 327-346, June.
    2. Maarten Ijzerman & Janine Til & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke Rehabilitation," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 45-56, March.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    7. Sarah K. Jacobi & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2007. "Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 194-210, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Jamie P. Monat, 2009. "The benefits of global scaling in multi-criteria decision analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 492-508, October.
    12. Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli, 2021. "Combining holistic and decomposition paradigms in preference modeling with the flexibility of FITradeoff," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(1), pages 7-47, March.
    13. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    14. 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.
    15. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    16. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    17. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    18. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Thalles Vitelli Garcez & Helder Tenório Cavalcanti & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2021. "A hybrid decision support model using Grey Relational Analysis and the Additive-Veto Model for solving multicriteria decision-making problems: an approach to supplier selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 304(1), pages 199-231, September.

    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:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:2:p:127-135. 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.