An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models

By P. Schoemaker, C. C. Waid. 1982

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning (2009, background): “7 See Shoemaker and Waid (1982), Beinat (1997), Hajkowicz et al. (2000b) and Pöyhönen and Hämäläinen (2001) for comparisons of weighting techniques. relative attractiveness of different kinds and levels of environmental impact were established along with the scale for each objective using numerical ”
The validity of attribute-importance. measurement: A review (2007, methodology): “Nomological validity is established by using the importance measures from two methods to predict choice or to relate both measures to perceptions, preferences, or intentions (Schoemaker and Waid, 1982).”
Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights (2000, methodology): “A good review of various subjective weighting methods commonly used in MA is given by a number of authors based on various performance measures, such as Barron and Barrett [15], Hobbs [16], and Schoemaker and Waid [17].”
Quantitative models for performance measurement system (2000, methodology): “Experiments [31,32] compared AHP with "ve other approaches, including the Utility approach and multiple regression approach.”
On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods (2001, methodology): “The correlation between the weights is one measure to study the convergent validity of methods within individual decision makers (Schoemaker and Waid, 1982; Borcherding et al., 1991).”