If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Comparison of Weighting Judgements in Multiattribute Utility Measurement

Katrin Borcherding, Thomas Eppel and Detlof von Winterfeldt
Management Science
Vol. 37, No. 12 (Dec., 1991), pp. 1603-1619
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632731
Page Count: 17
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Comparison of Weighting Judgements in Multiattribute Utility Measurement
Preview not available

Abstract

This paper compares four weighting methods in multiattribute utility measurement: the ratio method, the swing weighting method, the tradeoff method and the pricing out method. 200 subjects used these methods to weight attributes for evaluating nuclear waste repository sites in the United States. The weighting methods were compared with respect to their internal consistency, convergent validity, and external validity. Internal consistency was measured by the degree to which ordinal and cardinal or ratio responses agreed within the same weighting method. Convergent validity was measured by the degree of agreement between the weights elicited with different methods. External validity was determined by the degree to which weights elicited in this experiment agreed with weights that were elicited with managers of the Department of Energy. In terms of internal consistency, the tradeoff method fared worst. In terms of convergent validity, the pricing out method turned out to be an outlier. In terms of external validity, the pricing out method showed the best results. While the ratio and swing methods are quite consistent and show a fair amount of convergent validity, their external validity problems cast doubt on their usefulness. The main recommendation for applications is to improve the internal consistency of the tradeoff method by careful interactive elicitation and to use it in conjunction with the pricing out method to enhance its external validity.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1603
    1603
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1604
    1604
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1605
    1605
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1606
    1606
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1607
    1607
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1608
    1608
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1609
    1609
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1610
    1610
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1611
    1611
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1612
    1612
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1613
    1613
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1614
    1614
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1615
    1615
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1616
    1616
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1617
    1617
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1618
    1618
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1619
    1619