Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: Direct rating versus point allocation

Bottomley, Paul Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8131-6768, Doyle, John R. and Green, Rodney H. 2000. Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: Direct rating versus point allocation. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (4) , pp. 508-513. 10.1509/jmkr.37.4.508.18794

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Two commonly used methods of assigning numerical judgments (i.e., importance weights) to attributes in order to signify their relative importance are point allocation (PA) and direct rating (DR). These methods may seem to be minor variants of each other, yet they produce very different profiles of attribute weights when rank ordered from most to least important. The weights elicited by DR were more reliable than those elicited by PA in a test–retest situation. An important practical implication of this is for multicriteria decision making. Using people’s test–retest data as attribute weights on simulated alternative values revealed that the same alternative would be chosen on 88% of occasions with DR, but only 74% of occasions with PA. Moreover, subjects reacted more favorably to DR than to PA.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Business (Including Economics)
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HF Commerce
Publisher:	AMA - American Marketing Association
ISSN:	0022-2437
Last Modified:	21 Oct 2022 09:48
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/37812

Citation Data

Cited 94 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item