The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new method for scoring additive multi‐attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives
Abstract
We present a new method for determining the point values for additive multi‐attribute value models with performance categories. The method, which we refer to as PAPRIKA (P otentially A ll P airwise R an K ings of all possible A lternatives), involves the decision‐maker pairwise ranking potentially all undominated pairs of all possible alternatives represented by the value model. The number of pairs to be explicitly ranked is minimized by the method identifying all pairs implicitly ranked as corollaries of the explicitly ranked pairs. We report on simulations of the method's use and show that if the decision‐maker explicitly ranks pairs defined on just two criteria at‐a‐time, the overall ranking of alternatives produced by the value model is very highly correlated with the true ranking. Therefore, for most practical purposes decision‐makers are unlikely to need to rank pairs defined on more than two criteria, thereby reducing the elicitation burden. We also describe a successful real‐world application involving the scoring of a value model for prioritizing patients for cardiac surgery in New Zealand. We conclude that although the new method entails more judgments than traditional scoring methods, the type of judgment (pairwise rankings of undominated pairs) is arguably simpler and might reasonably be expected to reflect the preferences of decision‐makers more accurately. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Cited by
Tacconelli, E., Carrara, E., Savoldi, A., Harbarth, S., Mendelson, M., Monnet, D. L., Pulcini, C., Kahlmeter, G., Kluytmans, J., Carmeli, Y., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30753-3 · Cited by 6,142
Self-citationvan den Hoogen, F., Khanna, D., Fransen, J., Johnson, S. R., Baron, M., Tyndall, A., Matucci‐Cerinic, M., Naden, R. P., Medsger, T. A., Carreira, P. E., et al. (2013) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.38098 · Cited by 3,409
Dobson, F., Hinman, R. S., Roos, E. M., Abbott, J. H., Stratford, P., Davis, A. M., Buchbinder, R., Snyder-Mackler, L., Henrotin, Y., Thumboo, J., et al. (2013) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.002 · Cited by 908
Self-citationNeogi, T., Jansen, T. L. T. A., Dalbeth, N., Fransen, J., Schumacher, H. R., Berendsen, D., Brown, M., Choi, H., Edwards, N. L., Janssens, H. J. E. M., et al. (2015) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208237 · Cited by 888
Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., et al. (2016) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003 · Cited by 739
Simulation Modeling and Analysis
Gupta, A. (2016) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1201/9781315183176-14 · Cited by 640
A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing 'dead'
Sullivan, T., Hansen, P., Ombler, F., Derrett, S., & Devlin, N. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112707 · Cited by 51
Self-citationDrone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods
Sohaib Khan, M., Ali Shah, S. I., Javed, A., Mumtaz Qadri, N., & Hussain, N. (2021) · 2021 International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technologies (IBCAST) · doi:10.1109/ibcast51254.2021.9393291 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansen, P., & Ombler, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 87-107
- ISSN
- 1057-9214 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1360
- OpenAlex
- W1981674047
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
