A New Method for Scoring Additive Multi- attributeValue Models Using Pairwise Rankings of Alternatives

被引:218
作者
Hansen, Paul [1 ]
Ombler, Franz [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Dept Econ, POB 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
[2] 1000Minds, Wellington, New Zealand
关键词
additive multi-attribute value model; points system; scoring method; pairwise ranking;
D O I
10.1002/mcda.428
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
We present a new method for determining the point values for additive multi-attribute value models with performance categories. The method, which we refer to as PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives), involves the decision-maker pairwise ranking potentially all undominated pairs of all possible alternatives represented by the value model. The number of pairs to be explicitly ranked is minimized by the method identifying all pairs implicitly ranked as corollaries of the explicitly ranked pairs. We report on simulations of the method's use and show that if the decision-maker explicitly ranks pairs defined on just two criteria at-a-time, the overall ranking of alternatives produced by the value model is very highly correlated with the true ranking. Therefore, for most practical purposes decision-makers are unlikely to need to rank pairs defined on more than two criteria, thereby reducing the elicitation burden. We also describe a successful real-world application involving the scoring of a value model for prioritizing patients for cardiac surgery in New Zealand. We conclude that although the new method entails more judgments than traditional scoring methods, the type of judgment (pairwise rankings of undominated pairs) is arguably simpler and might reasonably be expected to reflect the preferences of decision-makers more accurately. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:87 / 107
页数:21
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]   User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques [J].
Aloysius, JA ;
Davis, FD ;
Wilson, DD ;
Taylor, AR ;
Kottemann, JE .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2006, 169 (01) :273-285
[2]  
Anderson B.B., 1976, ADV CONSUM RES, VIII, P353
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, OR MS TODAY
[4]  
Belton V., 2002, MULTIPLE CRITERIA DE, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
[5]  
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2009, SKILL WORK PROF WHO
[6]   Optimal conflict in preference assessment [J].
Delquié, P .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2003, 49 (01) :102-115
[7]  
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2010, ANN REP 2009 2010, P195
[8]   Waiting in the NHS, Part 2: a change of prescription [J].
Derrett, S ;
Devlin, N ;
Harrison, A .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 2002, 95 (06) :280-283
[9]   Points for pain: Waiting list priority scoring systems - May be the way forward, but we need to learn more about their effects [J].
Edwards, RT .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 318 (7181) :412-414
[10]   SMARTS AND SMARTER - IMPROVED SIMPLE METHODS FOR MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT [J].
EDWARDS, W ;
BARRON, FH .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1994, 60 (03) :306-325