Comparison Analysis of AHP-SAW, AHP-WP, AHP-TOPSIS Methods in Private Tutor Selection

• Published in: International journal of modern education and computer science Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 28 - 45
• Main Authors: Yanti Suartini, Ni Komang, Hendra Divayana, Dewa Gede, Erawati Dewi, Luh Joni
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hong Kong Modern Education and Computer Science Press 01.02.2023
• Subjects: Criteria; Decision making; Education; Educational tests & measurements; Learning Processes; Methods; Nonformal Education; Ranking; Teaching Methods; Tutoring; Tutors; Weighting
• ISSN: 2075-0161; 2075-017X
• DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2023.01.03

Private tutoring was a non-formal education, it was used as an alternative by parents to help support and maximize the learning process that students get at school. Sometimes parents have difficulty in adjusting the desired and needed criteria with available alternatives or teachers. To overcome these obstacles, this research used the MADM approach in providing alternative recommendations, based on the criteria used as the basis for decision making. MADM consists of SAW, WP, TOPSIS, and AHP. The advantages of the SAW, WP, and TOPSIS methods in managing cost and benefit data were used in the ranking process. While the weaknesses of the three methods in the weighting process can be overcome by the AHP method, which was able to provide more objective weighting results. Therefore, this research aimed to analyze the comparison of the combination of AHP-SAW, AHP-WP, and AHP-TOPSIS methods in the selection of private tutors. The combination of these methods was compared based on accuracy, ranking, and preference to get the best combination of MADM methods in determining the selection of private tutors. The criteria used in this research were education, experience, cost, duration, rating, and distance. The comparison of the three combinations of methods showed the AHP-SAW method has an accuracy rate of 88.14%, AHP-WP of 68.64%, and AHP-TOPSIS of 66.95%. The average ranking showed the AHP-SAW method gave results of 91%, AHP-WP of 88%, and AHP-TOPSIS of 89%. In addition, the average preference showed the AHP-SAW method gave a value of 0.771, AHP-WP of 0.073, and AHP-TOPSIS of 0.564. Thus, it showed the AHP-SAW gave better results in the case of private tutor selection than the AHP-WP and AHP-TOPSIS.