Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation

Joydeep Srivastava, Terence Connolly, Lee Roy Beach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared both attribute weights and overall evaluations for students′ preferences among apartments described to them in terms of nine independent attributes. Methods used for eliciting attribute weights were (a) 7-point scales; (b) value hierarchy; (c) swing weights; and two methods using importance rankings only: (d) rank order centroid and (e) rank sum weights. Multiple linear regression was also used to infer attribute weights. Test-retest reliability of overall evaluations was found to be modest. Evaluation models based on all five weight elicitation methods were superior to an equal weights model, with rank order centroid weights modestly superior to other methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)112-116
Number of pages5
JournalOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Volume63
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1995

Fingerprint

Weights and Measures
Weighting
Reproducibility of Results
Linear Models
Students
Evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Cite this

Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation. / Srivastava, Joydeep; Connolly, Terence; Beach, Lee Roy.

In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 63, No. 1, 07.1995, p. 112-116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{74b3310419424862ab7789926173b6ca,
title = "Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation",
abstract = "We compared both attribute weights and overall evaluations for students′ preferences among apartments described to them in terms of nine independent attributes. Methods used for eliciting attribute weights were (a) 7-point scales; (b) value hierarchy; (c) swing weights; and two methods using importance rankings only: (d) rank order centroid and (e) rank sum weights. Multiple linear regression was also used to infer attribute weights. Test-retest reliability of overall evaluations was found to be modest. Evaluation models based on all five weight elicitation methods were superior to an equal weights model, with rank order centroid weights modestly superior to other methods.",
author = "Joydeep Srivastava and Terence Connolly and Beach, {Lee Roy}",
year = "1995",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1006/obhd.1995.1066",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "63",
pages = "112--116",
journal = "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes",
issn = "0749-5978",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation

AU - Srivastava, Joydeep

AU - Connolly, Terence

AU - Beach, Lee Roy

PY - 1995/7

Y1 - 1995/7

N2 - We compared both attribute weights and overall evaluations for students′ preferences among apartments described to them in terms of nine independent attributes. Methods used for eliciting attribute weights were (a) 7-point scales; (b) value hierarchy; (c) swing weights; and two methods using importance rankings only: (d) rank order centroid and (e) rank sum weights. Multiple linear regression was also used to infer attribute weights. Test-retest reliability of overall evaluations was found to be modest. Evaluation models based on all five weight elicitation methods were superior to an equal weights model, with rank order centroid weights modestly superior to other methods.

AB - We compared both attribute weights and overall evaluations for students′ preferences among apartments described to them in terms of nine independent attributes. Methods used for eliciting attribute weights were (a) 7-point scales; (b) value hierarchy; (c) swing weights; and two methods using importance rankings only: (d) rank order centroid and (e) rank sum weights. Multiple linear regression was also used to infer attribute weights. Test-retest reliability of overall evaluations was found to be modest. Evaluation models based on all five weight elicitation methods were superior to an equal weights model, with rank order centroid weights modestly superior to other methods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0002654777&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0002654777&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/obhd.1995.1066

DO - 10.1006/obhd.1995.1066

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0002654777

VL - 63

SP - 112

EP - 116

JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

SN - 0749-5978

IS - 1

ER -