COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT JUDGMENT SCALES WITH THE AHP GSM OPERATOR PREFERENCE OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Q4 Decision Sciences
Esma Canhasi-Kasemi, Luan Vardari
{"title":"COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT JUDGMENT SCALES WITH THE AHP GSM OPERATOR PREFERENCE OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS","authors":"Esma Canhasi-Kasemi, Luan Vardari","doi":"10.13033/ijahp.v14i3.970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method with elegant mathematical features that is widely used in multi-criteria decision making. One of the main applications of this method, which is frequently preferred by decision makers due to its systematic and understandable structure, includes addressing inadequacies in terms of numerical scales that are generally used in pairwise comparisons. Therefore, this study includes two different judgment scales, Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale, which were used in the pairwise comparison stage. After the comparisons were made, the variance related to the consistency ratios and the range of the sensitivity was also observed. In the study, we discuss the use of both judgment scales in a real problem and their effects on priority estimation in the AHP. The study's goal is to evaluate the outcomes of Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale in the AHP technique for the two current operators in Kosovo's GSM sector, VALA and IPKO, and assess the preference of students in Kosovo. The required data were obtained through a questionnaire and the importance weights of the decision criteria were calculated separately for each scale and compared. The preference order of the GSM operators was discovered according to each decision criterion and all criteria. The ranking of the weights obtained with both scales resulted in IPKO first, followed by VALA. The Balanced scale made the results lighter in the weight distribution. Another important result is that the pairwise comparisons made with the Balanced scale yielded results that are more sensitive.  In addition, the closeness of the priority vectors obtained with both scales according to Saaty’s compatibility index and Garuti’s compatibility index was examined.","PeriodicalId":37297,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i3.970","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Decision Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method with elegant mathematical features that is widely used in multi-criteria decision making. One of the main applications of this method, which is frequently preferred by decision makers due to its systematic and understandable structure, includes addressing inadequacies in terms of numerical scales that are generally used in pairwise comparisons. Therefore, this study includes two different judgment scales, Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale, which were used in the pairwise comparison stage. After the comparisons were made, the variance related to the consistency ratios and the range of the sensitivity was also observed. In the study, we discuss the use of both judgment scales in a real problem and their effects on priority estimation in the AHP. The study's goal is to evaluate the outcomes of Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale in the AHP technique for the two current operators in Kosovo's GSM sector, VALA and IPKO, and assess the preference of students in Kosovo. The required data were obtained through a questionnaire and the importance weights of the decision criteria were calculated separately for each scale and compared. The preference order of the GSM operators was discovered according to each decision criterion and all criteria. The ranking of the weights obtained with both scales resulted in IPKO first, followed by VALA. The Balanced scale made the results lighter in the weight distribution. Another important result is that the pairwise comparisons made with the Balanced scale yielded results that are more sensitive.  In addition, the closeness of the priority vectors obtained with both scales according to Saaty’s compatibility index and Garuti’s compatibility index was examined.
两种不同判断量表与大学生AHP-GSM算子偏好的比较
层次分析法(AHP)是一种具有良好数学特性的方法,广泛应用于多准则决策中。这种方法的主要应用之一包括解决通常用于成对比较的数值尺度方面的不足,这种方法由于其系统和可理解的结构而经常受到决策者的青睐。因此,本研究包括两种不同的判断量表,萨蒂基本量表和平衡量表,这两种量表用于配对比较阶段。在进行比较后,还观察到与一致性比率和灵敏度范围相关的方差。在这项研究中,我们讨论了两种判断量表在实际问题中的使用,以及它们对AHP中优先级估计的影响。该研究的目标是评估科索沃GSM部门目前的两家运营商VALA和IPKO的AHP技术中Saaty基本量表和平衡量表的结果,并评估科索沃学生的偏好。通过问卷获得所需数据,并分别计算每个量表的决策标准的重要性权重并进行比较。根据每个决策准则和所有准则发现GSM运营商的偏好顺序。对两种量表获得的权重进行排名后,IPKO排名第一,VALA排名第二。平衡量表使重量分布的结果更轻。另一个重要的结果是,用平衡量表进行的成对比较产生了更敏感的结果。此外,还检验了根据Saaty相容性指数和Garuti相容性指数用两个量表获得的优先级向量的接近度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Decision Sciences-Decision Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: IJAHP is a scholarly journal that publishes papers about research and applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) and Analytic Network Process(ANP), theories of measurement that can handle tangibles and intangibles; these methods are often applied in multicriteria decision making, prioritization, ranking and resource allocation, especially when groups of people are involved. The journal encourages research papers in both theory and applications. Empirical investigations, comparisons and exemplary real-world applications in diverse areas are particularly welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信