A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: Good, better, and best

Omega

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 553-560

  Bottomley, Paul A ^a   Doyle, John R ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTE RELATIVES; ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT; ELICITATION METHODS; MULTI-ATTRIBUTES; PERFORMANCE; PROPERTY; SIMULATED ALTERNATIVES;

EID: 0042418755     PISSN: 03050483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00044-5     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Weber M., Borcherding K. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research. 67(1):1993;1-12.
2. Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Working paper, 25 May 1998.
3. Borcherding K., Eppel T., von Winterfeldt D. Comparisons of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility judgments. Management Science. 37(12):1991;1603-1619.
4. Doyle J.R., Green R.H., Bottomley P.A. Judging relative importance: direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 70(1):1997;65-72.
5. Bottomley P.A., Doyle J.R., Green R.H. Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: direct rating vs. point allocation. Journal of Marketing Research. 37:2000;508-513.
6. von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. 1986;Cambridge University Press, New York.
7. Edwards W., Barron F.H. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 60(4):1994;306-325.
8. von Nitzsch R., Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science. 39(8):1993;937-943.
9. Fischer G.W. Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multi-attribute value models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 62(3):1995;252-266.
10. Goldstein W.M., Einhorn H.J. Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomenon. Psychological Review. 94:1987;236-254.
11. Comrey A.L. A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling. Psychometrika. 15(3):1950;317-325.
12. Eckenrode R.T. Weighting multiple criteria. Management Science. 12(3):1965;180-192.
13. Heeler R.M., Okechuku C., Reid S. Attribute importance: contrasting measurements. Journal of Marketing Research. 16(1):1979;60-63.
14. Schoemaker P.J.H., Waid C.C. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Science. 28(2):1982;182-196.
15. Jaccard J., Sheng D.A. Comparison of six methods for assessing the importance of perceived consequences in behavioural decisions: applications from attitude research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 20(1):1984;1-28.
16. Jaccard J., Brinberg D., Ackerman L.J. Assessing attribute importance: a comparison of methods. Journal of Consumer Research. 12(4):1986;463-468.
17. Morera O.F., Budescu D.V. A psychometric analysis of the "Divide and Conquer" principle in multi-criteria decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 75(3):1998;187-206.
18. Alba J.W., Hutchinson J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research. 13:1987;411-454.
19. Sujan M. Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research. 12:1985;31-46.
20. Leon O.G. On the death of SMART and the birth of GRAPA. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 71(3):1997;249-262.
21. Steenkamp J.E.M., Van Trijp H.M. Attribute elicitation in marketing research: a comparison of three procedures. Marketing Letters. 8(2):1997;153-165.
22. Tukey J.W. Exploratory data analysis. 1977;Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
23. Mosteller F., Tukey J.W. Data analysis and regression: a second course in statistics. 1977;Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
24. David H.A. Order statistics. 1970;Wiley, New York.
25. Doyle JR, Bottomley PA. Linear programming models of comparison predict rating behaviors. Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Working paper, 1999.