Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation

Joydeep Srivastava, Terry Connolly, Lee Roy Beach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Scopus citations

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this