An evaluation of multi‐criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy

Those who conduct integrated assessments (IAs) are aware of the need to explicitly consider multiple criteria and uncertainties when evaluating policies for preventing global warming. MCDM methods are potentially useful for understanding tradeoffs and evaluating risks associated with climate policy alternatives. A difficulty facing potential MCDM users is the wide range of different techniques that have been proposed, each with distinct advantages. Methods differ in terms of validity, ease of use, and appropriateness to the problem. Alternative methods also can yield strikingly different rankings of alternatives. A workshop was held in which climate change experts and policy makers evaluated the usefulness of MCDM for IA. Participants applied several methods in the context of a hypothetical greenhouse gas policy decision. Methods compared include value and utility functions, goal programming, ELECTRE, fuzzy sets, stochastic dominance, min max regret, and several weight selection methods. Ranges, rather than point estimates, were provided for some questions to incorporate imprecision regarding weights. Additionally, several visualization methods for both deterministic and uncertain cases were used and evaluated. Analysis of method results and participant feedback through questionnaires and discussion provide the basis for conclusions regarding the use of MCDM methods for climate change policy and IA analyses. Hypotheses are examined concerning predictive and convergent validity of methods, existence of splitting bias among experts, perceived ability of methods to aid decision‐making, and whether expressing imprecision can change ranking results. Because participants gained from viewing a problem from several perspectives and results from different methods often significantly differed, it appears worthwhile to apply several MCDM methods to increase user confidence and insight. The participants themselves recommended such multimethod approaches for policymaking. Yet they preferred the freedom of unaided decision‐making most of all, challenging the MCDM community to create transparent methods that permit maximum user control. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Time complexity and consistency issues in using the AHP for making group decisions

Two different ways of using the AHP in making group decisions are compared and evaluated. The first method combines different experts’ opinions before applying an eigenvalue method to obtain final weights for decision alternatives. The second, in contrast, derives each expert's rating for the decision alternatives before combining them. Both methods take into account the relative importance of different experts in making decisions. Comparison and evaluation of these two methods are made by using two criteria: time complexity and consistency indices. A numerical example is provided to illustrate the use of these two methods, and results of a mathematical simulation are presented for comparing the time complexity in different-sized problems. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

不同铆测验设计下多维IRT等值方法的比较

实际应用中测验往往具有多维结构, 如果仍采用单维IRT方法进行等值, 会得到不准确的结果。因此对于多维结构的测验, 需要使用多维IRT等值方法来实现参数的转换。基于共同题设计, 文章通过模拟研究的方法, 考察了不同铆测验设计下几种多维IRT等值方法的表现, 同时考虑了测验长度、两个维度题目数量的比例、铆测验长度、铆测验的选择策略、两个维度之间的相关和等值群体的能力水平差异六个因素的影响。所比较的多维IRT等值方法有：均值/均值(MM)方法, 均值/标准差(MS)方法, Stoking-Lord (SL)方法, Haebara (HB)方法, 最小平方(LS)方法。结果显示：(1) SL, HB和LS方法得到的等值误差均方根最小, 且在各条件下表现较为稳定。(2) MM和MS方法在非等组条件下呈现出很大的误差均方根。(3)铆测验设计对SL, HB和LS方法的等值结果没有显著影响。(4)在两个维度之间的相关较高, 测验长度和铆测验长度较长, 等值群体的能力水平没有差异的条件下, SL, HB和LS方法得到的等值误差均方根最小。     

G.E.摩尔伦理学的方法论特征

G．E．摩尔作为现代西方元伦理学的开创,他在建构其理论体系时所运用的方法不是单一的。而是针对伦理学的不同问题交错运用了直觉方法、绝对孤立法、有机统一原理和分析方法。他的这些方法对于分析伦理学的发展起了很大的作用,但终因其致命缺陷而使该流派走向衰落。     

Euclid: Strategic alternative assessment matrix

The vast amount of information that must be considered to solve inherently ill‐structured and complex strategic problems creates a need for tools to help decision makers (DMs) recognize the complexity of this process and develop a rational model for strategy evaluation. Over the last several decades, a philosophy and a body of intuitive and analytical methods have been developed to assist DMs in the evaluation of strategic alternatives. However, the intuitive methods lack a structured framework for the systematic evaluation of strategic alternatives while the analytical methods are not intended to capture intuitive preferences. Euclid is a simple and yet sophisticated multiobjective value analysis model that attempts to uncover some of the complexities inherent in the evaluation of strategic alternatives. The proposed model uses a series of intuitive and analytical methods including environmental scanning, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), subjective probabilities, and the theory of displaced ideal, to plot strategic alternatives on a matrix based on their Euclidean distance from the ideal alternative. Euclid is further compared to the quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) in a real world application. The information provided by the users shows that Euclid can significantly enhance decision quality and the DM's confidence. Euclid is not intended to replace the DMs, rather, it provides a systematic approach to support, supplement, and ensure the internal consistency of their judgments through a series of logically sound techniques. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Field Experiment Comparing Anchored and Unanchored Criteria Weights in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

This study reports the results of a field experiment comparing the predictive validity of two approaches to multicriteria assessments: the absolute measurement mode of AHP and the absolute measurement mode of linking pin AHP. The questioning procedures of the two differ only in that the former employs unanchored criteria weight assessments and the latter anchored criteria weight assessments. The decision task required insurance agents to respond to a mailed questionnaire in which they evaluated non-monetary incentives (contests) according to (1) the public recognition received from winning, (2) the criteria for winning and (3) the nature of the reward. There were four levels for each dimension. A between subjects design was used, with each subject receiving one of the two methods. In addition, all subjects divided 100 points among four contests and these hold-out assignments were employed as a validity check. Linking pin AHP was found to be superior to conventional AHP in this experiment, lending weight to the argument that the use of unanchored criteria weights is problematic. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 6 : 140–149 (1997) No. of Figures: 3. No. of Tables: 5. No. of References: 24.     

The Added Value of Studying Embodied Responses in Couple Therapy Research: A Case Study

This article reports on the added value of embodied responses identified through sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity in couple therapy research. It focuses on moments of change and the timing of therapeutic interventions or therapeutic moves in a couple therapy session. The data for this single‐case study comprise couple therapy process videotapes recorded in a multi‐camera setting, and measurements of participants’ SNS activity. The voluntary participants were a marital couple in their late thirties and two middle‐aged male psychotherapists. The division into topic segments showed how the key issue of seeking help, which was found to comprise three separate components, was repeatedly dealt with in the session. SNS activity showed different degrees of synchronization between the couple, between the therapists, and between the couple and therapists during the dialogue pertaining to these three components. The issue of timing emerged as a complex, even ambivalent, phenomenon. Arousal in the therapists was in line with their therapeutic activity, whereas in the clients it was more anticipatory. The approach used here rendered visible some of the intensity that therapeutic dialogue can generate when dealing with issues of relationship change in the couple context and showed how this intensity can be dialogically regulated in the therapeutic system.     

The impact of bundle comparisons on bundle preference

The bundling literature largely holds that a person's reaction to a given product bundle depends only on the characteristics of the products contained in the bundle. This paper, instead, proposes that people evaluate bundles in reference to other bundles that they have seen. Prior research indicates that people are sensitive to a bundle's “attribute inventory” or the aggregate level of comparable attributes possessed by its constituent products. We show that when people evaluate a bundle, they compare the attribute inventories that it offers to those offered by other bundles that they have seen. The resulting compositional comparisons can occur without changes to the products that comprise the target and contextual bundles, vary by attribute comparability and attentional focus, and coexist with (and at times reverse the effects of) well‐established product‐specific context effects, which are determined solely by the products and their attributes.