Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:59:40.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

V. Srinivasan  and
Allan D. Shocker
V. Srinivasan
Affiliation:
The University of Rochester
Allan D. Shocker
Affiliation:
The University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a new methodology for estimating the weights or saliences of subcriteria (attributes) in a composite criterion measure. The inputs to the estimation procedure consist of (i) a set of stimuli or objects with each stimulus defined by its subcriteria profile (set of attribute values) and (ii) the set of paired comparison dominance (e.g., preference) judgments on the stimuli made by a single judge (expert) in terms of the global criterion. A criterion of fit is developed and its optimization via linear programming is illustrated with an example. The procedure is generalized to estimate a common set of weights when the pairwise judgments on the stimuli are made by more than one judge. The procedure is computationally efficient and has been applied in developing a composite criterion of managerial success yielding high concurrent validity.

This methodology can also be used to perform ordinal multiple regression—i.e., multiple regression with an ordinally scaled dependent variable and a set of intervally scaled predictor variables. The approach is further extended to “internal analysis” (unfolding) using the vector model of preference and to the additive model of “conjoint measurement.”

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 473 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bechtel, G. Individual differences in the linear multidimensional scaling of choice. Paper presented at meeting of the Psychometric Society in Princeton, N. J., April, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, M. L. and Naylor, J. C. Industrial Psychology—its theoretical and social foundations, 1968, New York: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N. and Romney, A. K., Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. Vol. I (Theory). New York: Seminar Press. 1972, 105–155Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. and Chang, J. J. Nonparametric multidimensional analysis of paired-comparisons data. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Psychometric and Psychonomic Societies at Niagara Falls, October, 1964.Google Scholar
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W. Management models and industrial applications of linear programming (Vol. 1), 1961, New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Dantzig, G. B. Linear programming and extensions, 1963, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. I. Linear programming: methods and applications, 1958, New York: McGraw-Hill Book CompanyGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 1971, 8, 355–363Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. J. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 116–131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristy, N. F. Criteria of occupational success among post office counter clerks, 1952, London: University of London LibraryGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1965, 27, 251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, 1, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCrimmon, K. R. Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach, 1968, Santa Monica, California: The RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. On subjectively optimum selections among multi-attribute alternatives. In Shelly, M. W., Bryan, G. L. (Eds.), Human judgment and optimality, 1964, New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Shocker, A. D. A methodological approach to the identification of a feasible mass transit configuration for maximal satisfaction to users. In Hopfe, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1971 AIDS Conference, 1971, St. Louis: American Institute of Decision SciencesGoogle Scholar
Slater, P. The analysis of personal preferences. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1960, 13, 119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluckin, W. Combining criteria of occupational success: Part I. Occupational Psychology, 1956, 30, 20–26Google Scholar
Sluckin, W. Combining criteria of occupational success: Part II. Occupational Psychology, 1956, 30, 57–67Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V. Linear programming computational procedures for ordinal regression, 1973, Rochester, New York: The University of Rochester, The Graduate School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A. D. Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 1973, 38, 337–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Shocker, A. D. and Weinstein, A. G. Measurement of a composite criterion of managerial success. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In Gullicksen, H., Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological Scaling: Theory and Applications. New York: Wiley. 1960, 155–167Google Scholar
Wagner, H. M. Linear programming techniques for regression analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1959, 54, 206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, S. R. Criteria for what?. American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar