Testing the Reliability of Weight Elicitation Methods: Direct Rating versus Point Allocation

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 a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of marketing research Vol. 37; no. 4; pp. 508 - 513
Main Authors Bottomley, Paul A., Doyle, John R., Green, Rodney H.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago American Marketing Association 01.11.2000
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Adjectives
Automobiles
Cognitive load
Consumer behavior
Consumer research
Correlation coefficients
Hypotheses
Logical givens
Marketing
Methods
Multiple criteria decision making
Ratings & rankings
Regression coefficients
Research methods
Statistical analysis
Term weighting
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0022-2437
1547-7193
DOI:10.1509/jmkr.37.4.508.18794