A statistical approach to measure the consistency level of the pairwise comparison matrix

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 65, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1380-1386

  Lin, Changsheng ^a,c   Kou, Gang ^b   Ergu, Daji ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA   (China)

^b SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

^c YANGTZE NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY FOR NATIONALITIES   (China)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; consistency index; hypothesis test; pairwise comparison matrix

Indexed keywords

OPERATIONS RESEARCH; RESEARCH;

CONSISTENCY INDEX; CONSISTENCY RATIO; CONSISTENCY TESTS; EDUCATION EVALUATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTS; PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES; SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS; STATISTICAL APPROACH;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS;

EID: 84895058901     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2013.92     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aguarón J and Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research 147(1): 137-145.
2. Alonso JA and Lamata MT (2004). Estimation of the random index in the analytic hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 1, Perugia, pp 317-322.
3. Alonso JA and Lamata M (2006). Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 14(4): 445-459.
4. Bana e Costa C and Vansnick J (2008). A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 187(3): 1422-1428.
5. Crawford G and Williams C (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29(4): 387-405.
6. Chen XH (2009). Methods and Application of the Complicated and Enormous Group Decision Making. Science Press: Beijing.
7. Devore TL (2000). Probability and Statistics. Thomson Learning: California.
8. Ergu D and Kou G (2012). Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making. Annals of Operations Research 197(1): 5-23.
9. Ergu D, Kou G, Peng Y and Shi Y (2011a). A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of Operational Research 213(1): 246-259.
10. Ergu D, Kou G, Shi Y and Shi Y (2011b). Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis. Computers and Operations Research. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.005.
11. Hauser D and Tadikamalla P (1996). The analytic hierarchy process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research 91(1): 27-37.
12. Herman M (1996). An intrinsic consistency threshold for reciprocal matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 96(2): 387-391.
13. Hovanov NV, Kolari JW and Sokolov MV (2008). Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical Social Sciences 55(2): 205-220.
14. Ishizaka A and Labib A (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 38(11): 14336-14345.
15. Ji P and Jiang R (2003). Scale transitivity in the AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(8): 896-905.
16. Johnson RA and Wichern DW (1998). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
17. Jong PD (1984). A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28(4): 467-478.
18. Peláez JI and Lamata MT (2003). A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 46(12): 1839-1845.
19. Karapetrovic S and Rosenbloom E (1999). A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 119(3): 704-718.
20. K. M. Van Uden E (2004). Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP. Computers and Operations Research 31(3): 713-719.
21. Murphy CK (1993). Limits on the analytic hierarchy process from its consistency index. European Journal of Operational Research 65(1): 138-139.
22. Peng Y, Kou G, Wang G and Shi Y (2011a). FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega 39(6): 677-689.
23. Peng Y, Kou G, Wang G, Wu W and Shi Y (2011b). Ensemble of software defect predictors: An AHP-based evaluation method. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 10(1): 187-206.
24. Saaty TL (1977). A Scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234-281.
25. Saaty TL (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
26. Saaty TL (1994). Fundamentals of for Decision Making. RSW Publication: Newport.
27. Shen Y (1990). A probability distribution and convergence of the consistency index u in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 13(2): 59-77.
28. Stein WE and Mizzi PJ (2007). The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 177(1): 488-497.
29. Vargas LG (2008). The consistency index in reciprocal matrices: Comparison of deterministic and statistical approaches. European Journal of Operational Research 191(2): 454-463.
30. Wang Y, Chin KS and Luo Y (2009). Aggregation of direct and indirect judgements in pairwise comparison matrices with a reexamination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Information Sciences 179(3): 329-337.