Advances in Decision Sciences / 2012 / Article / Tab 1

Review Article

State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation

Table 1

An overview of some of the most prominent weight elicitation methods ( = no. of criteria).

Weight elicitation methodExtraction Representation Interpretation
AssessmentInputMin. no. of judgments

Direct RatingCardinal
Joint procedure
PreciseN Point estimatesNormalized criteria weights

Point AllocationCardinal
Joint procedure
PreciseN Point estimatesNormalized criteria weights

SMARTCardinal
Joint procedure
PreciseN Point estimatesNormalized criteria weights

SWINGCardinal
Joint procedure
PreciseN Point estimatesNormalized criteria weights

Trade-offCardinal
Pairwise
procedure
Precise   
(with consistency check)
Point estimates
Relative between
pairs of criteria
(Combined) normalized criteria weights

Rank-order
methods
Ordinal
Joint procedure
Rank-orderN Comparative
statements
Surrogate criteria weights (translated using a conversion method).

AHPCardinal
Pairwise
procedure
Semantic   
(with consistency check)
Semantic estimates
Relative between
pairs of criteria
(Combined) surrogate criteria weights
(translated from semantic to exact numerical)

CROCOrdinal and
Cardinal
Joint proc.
Rank-order and imprecise cardinal relation information N (>N with cardinal input)Comparative statements +
Imprecise cardinal relation information
Surrogate (centroid) criteria weights

Interval methodsNormally, a generalized ratio-weight procedureInterval endpoints
(precise)
min. no. of judgments in employed ratio-weight procedure)IntervalsInterval criteria weights