IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/crebss/v2y2016i1p1-14n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multivariate approach to imposing additional constraints on the Benefit-of-the-Doubt model: The case of QS World University Rankings by Subject

Author

Listed:
  • Maričić Milica

    (Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Bulajić Milica

    (Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Radojičić Zoran

    (Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Jeremić Veljko

    (Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

Composite indexes have become a valuable asset for stakeholders as they provide ranks of entities and information upon which decisions are made. However, certain questions about their development procedure have been raised recently, especially regarding the weighting process. To tackle the observed issue, in this paper we propose a new multivariate approach for defining weights. Namely, the model based on the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), the Benefit-of-the-Doubt (BoD) model, has been used with significant success in the process of composite index development. On the other hand, the Composite I-distance Indicator (CIDI) methodology stands out as an impartial method for assigning weights to indicators. By combining these two approaches, some of the limitations of the original BoD model could be overcome. As a result, new entity-specific weights which maximize the value of the composite index can be proposed. As a case study, we analysed the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings by Subject in the field of statistics and operational research. The obtained results, which are based on the data-driven weights, can provide new insights into the nature of the observed ranking. The approach presented here might provoke further research on the topic of composite index weights and on the university rankings by subject.

Suggested Citation

  • Maričić Milica & Bulajić Milica & Radojičić Zoran & Jeremić Veljko, 2016. "Multivariate approach to imposing additional constraints on the Benefit-of-the-Doubt model: The case of QS World University Rankings by Subject," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:crebss:v:2:y:2016:i:1:p:1-14:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/crebss-2016-0005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/crebss-2016-0005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/crebss-2016-0005?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2014. "Measuring World Better Life Frontier: A Composite Indicator for OECD Better Life Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 987-1007, September.
    2. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    3. Milica Maricic & Milica Kostic-Stankovic, 2016. "Towards an impartial Responsible Competitiveness Index: a twofold multivariate I-distance approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 103-120, January.
    4. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    5. Rogge, Nicky, 2012. "Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The Environmental Performance Index," Working Papers 2012/08, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    6. Michela Nardo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli & Stefano Tarantola & Anders Hoffman & Enrico Giovannini, 2005. "Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publishing.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    8. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.
    9. Dobrota, Marina & Martic, Milan & Bulajic, Milica & Jeremic, Veljko, 2015. "Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 406-420.
    10. Marina Dobrota & Milica Bulajic & Lutz Bornmann & Veljko Jeremic, 2016. "A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(1), pages 200-211, January.
    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. Kuklin, V.Zh. (Куклин, В.Ж.), 2017. "Formation of Rating Systems and Their Assessment [Формирование Рейтинговых Систем И Их Оценка]," Working Papers 061712, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

    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. Milica Maricic & Jose A. Egea & Veljko Jeremic, 2019. "A Hybrid Enhanced Scatter Search—Composite I-Distance Indicator (eSS-CIDI) Optimization Approach for Determining Weights Within Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 497-537, July.
    2. Van Puyenbroeck, Tom & Rogge, Nicky, 2017. "Geometric mean quantity index numbers with Benefit-of-the-Doubt weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 1004-1014.
    3. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    4. Amado, Carla A.F. & São José, José M.S. & Santos, Sérgio P., 2016. "Measuring active ageing: A Data Envelopment Analysis approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 207-223.
    5. Zanella, Andreia & Camanho, Ana S. & Dias, Teresa G., 2015. "Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 517-530.
    6. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    7. Jesús Peiró-Palomino & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2018. "Assessing well-being in European regions. Does government quality matter?," Working Papers 2018/06, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    8. Laurens CHERCHYE & Willem MOESEN & Nicky ROGGE & Tom VAN PUYENBROECK, 2009. "Constructing a knowledge economy composite indicator with imprecise data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces09.15, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    9. Blancard, Stéphane & Hoarau, Jean-François, 2013. "A new sustainable human development indicator for small island developing states: A reappraisal from data envelopment analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 623-635.
    10. P. Zhou & B. Ang, 2009. "Comparing MCDA Aggregation Methods in Constructing Composite Indicators Using the Shannon-Spearman Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 83-96, October.
    11. Athanassoglou, Stergios, 2015. "Revisiting Worst-case DEA for Composite Indicators," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 198712, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Tom Puyenbroeck, 2018. "On the Output Orientation of the Benefit-of-the-Doubt-Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 415-431, September.
    13. Nicky Rogge & Ilse Nijverseel, 2019. "Quality of Life in the European Union: A Multidimensional Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 765-789, January.
    14. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2017. "Measuring Socio-economic Factors and Sensitivity of Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 463-504, April.
    15. Ana Cárcaba & Eduardo González & Juan Ventura & Rubén Arrondo, 2017. "How Does Good Governance Relate to Quality of Life?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Verbunt, Pim & Rogge, Nicky, 2018. "Geometric composite indicators with compromise Benefit-of-the-Doubt weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 388-401.
    17. Jesús Peiró‐Palomino & Andrés J. Picazo‐Tadeo & Vicente Rios, 2020. "Well‐being in European regions: Does government quality matter?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(3), pages 555-582, June.
    18. Eni Dardha & Nicky Rogge, 2020. "How's Life in Your Region? Measuring Regional Material Living Conditions, Quality of Life and Subjective Well-Being in OECD Countries Using a Robust, Conditional Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 1015-1073, October.
    19. Ana Cárcaba & Eduardo González & Juan Ventura, 2017. "Social Progress in Spanish Municipalities (2001–2011)," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 12(4), pages 997-1019, December.
    20. Hatefi, S.M. & Torabi, S.A., 2010. "A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 114-120, November.

    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:vrs:crebss:v:2:y:2016:i:1:p:1-14:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.