Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local and regional coherence utility assessment procedures

  • Coherence of Models and Utilities
  • Invited Papers
  • Published:
Trabajos de Estadistica Y de Investigacion Operativa

Summary

Novick and Lindley (1978, 1979) have dealt with the use of utility functions for applications in education and have advocated the use of the standard gamble (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1953) elicitation procedure with the addition of coherence checking using overspecification and a least squares fit. In this procedure utilities are inferred from probability judgements offered by the assessor. This paper describes local and regional coherence procedures which seek utility coherence in successive restricted domains of the parameter space as preludes to overall coherence checking. These procedures and some others are viewed as possible ways of avoiding anchoring and certainty effect biases found in earlier fixed probability methods, and presumably present in current fixed state procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Degroot, M.H. (1970).Optimal statistica decisions. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1975).Probability and statistics. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation.Tech. Rep. PTR—1042-77-8, University of Iowa.

  • — (1980). Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. Appearing inCognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. (T. Wallston, ed.) Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A.L., &Su, W.H. (1975). Defining a “fair” or “unbiased” selection model: A question of utilities.J. Appl. Psychol.60, 345–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. (1975). Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.20, 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1978). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica.47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology 3, 430–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L., &Raiffa, H. (1976).Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneppreth, N.P., Gustafson, D.H., Leifer, R.P., &Johnson, E.M. (1974). Techniques for the assessment of worth.U.S. Army research institute for the behavioral and social sciences.Tech. Rep.254, 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, E.L. (1959).Testing Statistical Hypothesis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F., &Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility.Political Economy,59, 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R. (1973). High School attainment: an example of a computer-assisted Bayesian approach to data analysis.Internat. Statist. Rev.41, 269–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1975). A cource in Bayesian Statistics.Amer. Statist. 29, 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., &Isaacs, G.L. (1978). Manual for the computer-assisted data analysis (CADA) Monitor, Iowa City: The University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., &Isaacs, G.L., Hamer, R., Chen, J., Chuang, D., Woodworth, G., Molenaar, I., Lewis, C., &Libby, D. (1980).Manual for The Computer-assisted data analysis monitor, Iowa City: The University of Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., &Jackson, P.H. (1974).Statistical methods for educational and psychological research. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., &Lindley, D.V. (1979). Fixed state assessment of utility functions.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.74, 306–311.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., & Lindley, D.V. (1978). The use of more realistic utility functions in educational applications.J. Educational Measurement, 181–192.

  • Novick, M.R., &Petersen, N.S. (1976). Towards equalizing educational and employment opportunity.J. Educational Measurement,13, 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, N.S. (1976). An expected utility model for “optimal” selection.J. Educational Statistics1, 333–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, N.S., &Novick, M.R. (1976). An evaluation of some models for culture-fair selection.J. Educational Measurement,13, 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H., &Schlaifer, R. (1961).Applied statistical decision theory, Boston: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaifer, R. (1959).Probability and statistics for business decisions: An introduction to managerial economics under uncertainty, New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives.Experimental Psychol.3, 280–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1972). From Shakespeare, to Simon: Speculation-and some evidence-about man’s ability to process information.Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin,12, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fishchoff, B., &Lichtenstein S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory.Annual Rev. Psychol.,28, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetzler, C.S., &Stael von Holstein, C.A.S. (1975). Probability encoding decision analysis.Management Science,22, 340–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P., &Walsh, K. (1959). A non-linear model for the experimental measurement of utility.Behavioral Science,4, 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swalm, R.O. (1966). Utility theory—insights into risk taking.Harvard Business Rev.44, 123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). On the elicitation of preferences: Descriptive and prescriptive considerations. InConflicting objectives in decisions, (D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa eds.) 209–222. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. &Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biasesScience,185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, W.J. &Mellenbergh, G.J. (1977). Optimal cutting scores using a linear loss function.Appl. Psychol. Measurement,1, 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vleck, C.A.J. (1973). Coherence of human judgment in a limited probabilistic environment.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,9, 460–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J. &Morgenstern, O. (1953).Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

References in the Discussion

  • Aitchison, J. andDunsmore, I.R. (1975)Statistical Prediction Analysis. Cambridge: University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berkson, J. (1938) Some difficulties of interpretation encountered in the application of the chi-squared test.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.33, 526–42.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot, M.H. (1970)Optimal Statistical Decisions, Reading, Mass: Addision-Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J.B. andDickey, J.M. (1979) Bayesian decision theory and the simplification of models.Evaluation of Economic Models. (J. Kmenta and J. Ramsey, Eds.) New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J.B., Dickey, J.M., Winkler, R.L., Smith, andPeters, S.C., 1979.Tech. Rep.150, Carnegie-Mellon.

  • Kelly, G.A. (1955)The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan, A (1979) On outlier rejection phenomena in Bayes inference.J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B.41. 358–367.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan, A. andLeonard, T. (1976) Bayes estimation subject to uncertainty about parameter constraints.Biometrika63, 201–203.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1972)Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. (1976)A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Spetzler, C.S. (1968) I.E.E.E. Trans. Systems, Science Cybernetics. SSC-4, 297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • STROUD, T.W.F. (1980) Empirical Bayes versions of Stein-type estimators.Tech. Rep. Stanford University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Iowa, Iowa, USA

    M. R. Novick, D. F. Dekeyrel & D. T. Chuang

Authors
  1. M. R. Novick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. F. Dekeyrel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. T. Chuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Novick, M.R., Dekeyrel, D.F. & Chuang, D.T. Local and regional coherence utility assessment procedures. Trabajos de Estadistica Y de Investigacion Operativa 31, 557–581 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02888368

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02888368

Keywords

Search

Navigation