Journal of Applied Information Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Effect of Scale Ranges on Priorities and Discrimination Level of Alternatives in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)


Affiliations
1 Saipa Yadak, Iran, Islamic Republic of
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In this paper, we first reviews different measurement scales (Linear, Power, Geometric, Logarithmic, Root square, Inverse linear, and Balanced) adopted in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). then, with reduction of different measurement scale ranges to: left position (i.e., for linear measurement scale: 1-3), middle position (4-6), right position (7-9), left&middle position (1-6), middle&right position (4-9), and perfect ranges (1-9), the effects of different measurement scale on priorities and discrimination level (to discriminate an important alternative from others) of alternatives are investigated. The findings of this paper reveal that first, in 39 possibilities out of 42 cases, the same ranking (A1>A2>A3) with different intensities were obtained, and in 3 possibilities rank reversal are happened. Next, the geometric measurement scale in all ranges and particularly in perfect range have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative than others. Moreover, only the left position and perfect ranges in the most of measurement scales have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative from others.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Measurement Scale, Scale Ranges, Discrimination Level.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • M. Azadfallah, “Marketing strategy selection by interval TOPSIS under incomplete data,” XIBA Business Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 29-38, 2016.

  • M. H. Birnbaum, “Measurement, Judgment, and decision making,” Academic Press, 1998.

  • M. A. A. “Multidimensional scaling as an aid for the Analytic Network and Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Data Science, vol. 7, pp. 381-396, 2009.

  • Y. Dong, Y. Xu, H. Li, and M. Dai, “A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 229-242, April, 2008.

  • E. Forman, and A. Selly, “Decision by objectives,” World Scientific Press, 2001..

  • A. Ishizaka, and A. Labib, “Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations,” OR Insight, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 201-220, 2009.

  • A. Ishizaka, D. Balkenborg, and T. Kaplan, “Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 700-710, 2011.

  • P. Ji, and R. Jiang, “Scale transitivity in the AHP,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society, pp. 54, no. 8, pp. 896-905, 2003.

  • F. H. F. Liu, and H. L. Hai, The voting Analytic Hierarchy Process method for selecting supplier,” International Journal Production Economics, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 308-317, 2005.

  • R. D. Luce, “Quantification and symmetry,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 395-398, 1997.

  • S. C. Masin, “Norman Robert Campbell, A neglected forerunner in sensory measurement,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, UK, vol. 22, pp. 217-222, 2006.

  • S. M. Mirhedayatian, M. Jafarian, and R. F. Saen, “A multi-objective slack based measure of efficiency model for weight derivation in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 19, pp. 3338-3350, 2011.

  • M. A. Poyhonen, R. P. Hämäläinen, and A. A. Salo, “An experiment on the numerical modeling of verbal ratio statements,“ Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 1997.

  • T. l. Saaty, “Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory”, RWS Publication, vol. 6, 2000.

  • T. L. Saaty, T. L. “Deriving the AHP 1-9 scale from first principles,” Proceedings of the 6th ISAHP 2001 Bern, Switzerland, pp. 397-401, August, 2001.

  • T. L. Saaty, “Scales from measurement not measurement from scales”, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, pp. 6-11, August, 2004.

  • Saaty T. L. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision making”, in Multi Criteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey (Figueira et al., Eds), Kluwer academic publisher, 345-406.

  • A. Salo, and R. Hamalainen, “On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic hierarchy Process,” Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 309-319, 1997.

  • Y. Sato, “The impact on scaling on the pair wise comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Berns Switzerland, pp. 421-430, August, 2001.

  • E. Triantaphyllou, F. A. Lootsma, P. M. Pardalos, S. H. Mann, “On the evaluation and application of different scales for quantifying pair wise comparisons in fuzzy sets,” Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 133-155, 1994.

  • P. Vachajitpan, “Measurements scales and derivation of priorities in pair wise and group decision making”, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, pp. 1-6, August, 2004.

  • X. Wang, “Study of ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods and a proposed new MCDM method based on regret and rejoicing”, MSc. Thesis, Louisiana State University, USA, 2007.

  • S. Webber, and F. Eisenfuhr, “The sensitivity of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to alternative scale and cue presentations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 351-362, 1996.

  • W. C. Wedley, “AHP answers to problems with known composite values,” International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Berns Switzerland, pp. 551-560, August, 2001.

  • W. C. Wedley, “AHP/ANP- Where is natural zero?,” International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, VinaDel Mar, Chile, pp. 1-15, August, 2007.


Abstract Views: 269

PDF Views: 1




  • The Effect of Scale Ranges on Priorities and Discrimination Level of Alternatives in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Abstract Views: 269  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Mohammad Azadfallah
Saipa Yadak, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


In this paper, we first reviews different measurement scales (Linear, Power, Geometric, Logarithmic, Root square, Inverse linear, and Balanced) adopted in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). then, with reduction of different measurement scale ranges to: left position (i.e., for linear measurement scale: 1-3), middle position (4-6), right position (7-9), left&middle position (1-6), middle&right position (4-9), and perfect ranges (1-9), the effects of different measurement scale on priorities and discrimination level (to discriminate an important alternative from others) of alternatives are investigated. The findings of this paper reveal that first, in 39 possibilities out of 42 cases, the same ranking (A1>A2>A3) with different intensities were obtained, and in 3 possibilities rank reversal are happened. Next, the geometric measurement scale in all ranges and particularly in perfect range have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative than others. Moreover, only the left position and perfect ranges in the most of measurement scales have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative from others.

Keywords


Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Measurement Scale, Scale Ranges, Discrimination Level.

References