On the Comparison of Group Performance with Categorical Data

There are many different evaluation problems that involve several groups (societies, firms or institutions) whose members can be classified into ordered categories, pursuant to their characteristics or their achievements. This paper addresses these types of problems and provides an evaluation criterion based on the distribution of the agents across categories. The starting point is that of dominance relations in pair-wise comparisons. We say that group i dominates group j when the expected category of a member of i is higher than the expected category of a member of j. We introduce the notion of relative advantage of a group to extend this principle to multi-group comparisons and show that there is a unique evaluation function that ranks all groups consistently in terms of this criterion. This function associates to each evaluation problem the (unique) dominant eigenvector of a matrix whose entries describe the dominance relations between groups in pair-wise comparisons. The working of the model is illustrated by means of three different applications.

[1]  J. Moon,et al.  On Generalized Tournament Matrices , 1970 .

[2]  James E Foster,et al.  Measuring health inequality using qualitative data. , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[3]  Pavel Yu. Chebotarev,et al.  Characterizations of scoring methods for preference aggregation , 2006, ArXiv.

[4]  Sean F. Reardon,et al.  2. Measures of Multigroup Segregation , 2002 .

[5]  D. Laband,et al.  The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 1970-1990 , 1994 .

[6]  I. Cleemput,et al.  Making health continuous: implications of different methods on the measurement of inequality. , 2006, Health economics.

[7]  Andrew M Jones,et al.  Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[8]  James A. Robinson,et al.  Why nations fail ? The origins of Power , Prosperity and Poverty , 2015 .

[9]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight , 2010 .

[10]  D. R. Heise,et al.  Rank-Sum Comparisons between Groups , 1976 .

[11]  Ronald Smith,et al.  Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty , 2012 .

[12]  W. Thomson,et al.  On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency , 2008 .

[13]  Gaston Yalonetzky,et al.  A dissimilarity index of multidimensional inequality of opportunity , 2010 .

[14]  Gabriel Pinski,et al.  Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics , 1976, Inf. Process. Manag..

[15]  O. Alonso‐Villar,et al.  Occupational segregation measures: A role for status , 2011 .

[16]  Rick Grannis,et al.  Discussion: Segregation Indices and Their Functional Inputs , 2002 .

[17]  Oscar Volij,et al.  The Measurement of Intellectual Influence , 2002 .

[18]  Giora Slutzki,et al.  Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations , 2006, Soc. Choice Welf..

[19]  R. Serrano The Measurement of Intellectual Influence: The Views of a Sceptic , 2004 .

[20]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  Tournament Solutions And Majority Voting , 1997 .

[21]  Ruud Hendrickx,et al.  Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods , 2013, Social Choice and Welfare.

[22]  R. Abul Naga,et al.  Inequality Measurement Forordered Response Health Data , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[23]  Pavel Yu. Chebotarev,et al.  Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation , 1998, Ann. Oper. Res..

[24]  Sean F. Reardon,et al.  3. Measures of Spatial Segregation , 2004 .

[25]  P. Cubi-Molla Scaling methods for categorical self-assessed health measures , 2010 .

[26]  J. Moon Topics on tournaments , 1968 .

[27]  B. Zheng A new approach to measure socioeconomic inequality in health , 2011 .

[28]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  The relation between Eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..