Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons

It is often desirable in decision analysis problems to elicit from an individual the rankings of a population of attributes according to the individual's preference and to understand the degree to which each attribute is preferred to the others. A common method for obtaining this information involves the use of pairwise comparisons, which allows an analyst to convert subjective expressions of preference between two attributes into numerical values indicating preferences across the entire population of attributes. Key to the use of pairwise comparisons is the underlying numerical scale that is used to convert subjective linguistic expressions of preference into numerical values. This scale represents the psychological manner in which individuals perceive increments of preference among abstract attributes and it has important implications about the distribution and consistency of an individual's preferences. Three popular scale types, the traditional integer scales, balanced scales and power scales are examined. Results of a study of 64 individuals responding to a hypothetical decision problem show that none of these scales can accurately capture the preferences of all individuals. A study of three individuals working on an actual engineering decision problem involving the design of a decay heat removal system for a nuclear fission reactor show that the choice of scale can affect the preferred decision. It is concluded that applications of pairwise comparisons would benefit from permitting participants to choose the scale that best models their own particular way of thinking about the relative preference of attributes.

[1]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  A new method for estimating human error probabilities: AHP-SLIM , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[3]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[4]  Maurizio Bevilacqua,et al.  A combined goal programming - AHP approach to maintenance selection problem , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[5]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[6]  R. Keeney Building models of values , 1988 .

[7]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[8]  James S. Dyer,et al.  A clarification of “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” , 1990 .

[9]  E. Forman Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices , 1990 .

[10]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[11]  J. Dyer Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process , 1990 .

[12]  F. Mosteller Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations , 1951 .

[13]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  Application of risk-informed design methods to select the PSACS ultimate heat sink , 2009 .

[14]  T. Saaty An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” , 1990 .

[15]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  Bulk power risk analysis: Ranking infrastructure elements according to their risk significance , 2008 .

[16]  Poong-Hyun Seong,et al.  A method for risk-informed safety significance categorization using the analytic hierarchy process and bayesian belief networks , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[17]  Geert Wets,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of the road safety index , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[18]  Jianhong Shen,et al.  On the foundations of vision modeling: I. Weber’s law and Weberized TV restoration , 2003 .

[19]  S. S. Stevens On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[20]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process , 1997 .

[21]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  On the Evaluation and Application of Different Scales For Quantifying Pairwise Comparisons in Fuzzy Sets , 1994 .

[22]  Ernst Heinrich Weber,et al.  De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae , 1834 .

[23]  David Barber,et al.  Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.