Abstract
A key component of many multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) is the elicitation of stakeholder preferences in the form or scores and weights. A challenge to the MCDA practitioner is that there is little guidance about how to choose between the many scoring and weighting techniques. This chapter describes and illustrates the four commonly used methods – direct rating (specifically an instance of the use of the Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) framework), Keeney-Raiffa MCDA, the analytical hierarchy process and discrete choice experiment – and identifies key differences between these techniques in order to support researchers to determine the most appropriate technique in different circumstances. It is concluded that there is no ‘best’ MCDA method, with the pertinence of methods depending on the objective of the analysis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baltussen R, Niessen L (2006) Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc C/E 4:14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14
Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, MIT Press series in transportation studies. MIT Press, Cambridge
Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14:403–413
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual see http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 21(2):145–172. doi:10.1002/hec.1697
De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S (2000) Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods. In: 3rd Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna
De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S (2005) Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S (eds) Alternatives for environmental evaluation. Routledge, Abingdon/Oxon
Deal CL, Tony M, Hoybye C, Allen DB, Tauber M, Christiansen JS, Growth Hormone in Prader-Willi Syndrome Clinical Care Guidelines Workshop P (2013) GrowthHormone Research Society workshop summary: consensus guidelines for recombinant human growth hormone therapy in Prader-Willi syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(6):E1072–1087. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3888
Devlin NJ, Sussex J (2011) In corporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes.
Diaby V, Campbell K, Goeree R (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Oper Res Health Care 2:20–24
Dolan JG (1989) Medical decision making using the analytic hierarchy process choice of initial antimicrobial therapy for acute pyelonephritis. Med Decis Making 9(1):51–56
Dolan JG (1995) Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions? Med Decis Making 15(1):76–80
Dolan JG (2008) Shared decision-making--transferring research into practice: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns 73(3):418–425. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.032
Dolan JG (2010) Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient 3(4):229–248. doi:10.2165/11539470-000000000-00000
Dolan JG, Isselhardt BJ, Cappuccio JD (1989) The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making a tutorial. Med Decis Making 9(1):40–50
Dyer JS, Wendell RE (1985) A critique of the analytic hierarchy process. Department of Management, College of Business Administration and Graduate School of Business, Austin
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2011) Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 3 report: field tests
European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2012) Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes
Fasolo B, Bana e Costa C (2014) Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers’ numeracy and fluency: expressing value judgements in numbers or words. Omega 44:83–90
Getzner M, Splash CL, Stagl S (2005) Alternatives for environmental valuation. Routledge, New York
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D (2008) Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 8:270. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C (2010) Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc : C/E 8:4. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-8-4
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D (2012) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak : Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 32(2):376–388. doi:10.1177/0272989X11416870
Guitouni A, Martel J-M (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521
Haedrich G, Kuß A, Kreilkamp E (1986) Der analytic hierarchy process. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium 15(3):120–126
Hummel M, IJzerman M, van Manen J, Danner M, Gerber-Grote A, Volz F, Wiegard B (2013) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) – pilot project to elicit patient preferences in the indication “depression”. IQWiG Report
IJzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ (2008) Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient: Patient-Cent Outcomes Res 1(4):265–272
Ivlev I, Kneppo P, Bartak M (2014) Multicriteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(3):576–589
Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Mashall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, Bresnahan BW, Kanninen B, Bridges JFP (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 16(1):3–13
Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res 50(6):935–945
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York
Kelley T (1927) Interpretation of educational measurements. Macmillan, New York
Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2):132–157
Lancsar E, Louviere J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8):661–678
Lee WC, Hung FH, Tsang KF, Tung HC, Lau WH, Rakocevic V, Lai LL (2015) A speedy cardiovascular diseases classifier using multiple criteria decision analysis. Sensors 15(1):1312–1320
Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL (2008) The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 189(1):194–207
Manthey L (2007) Methoden der Präferenzmessung: Grundlagen, Konzepte und experimentelle Untersuchungen. Universität Jena, Norderstedt
Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J (2014) Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32(4):345–365. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0
McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers of economics. Academic, London, pp 105–142
Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM (2012) Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc : C/E 10(1):2. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-2
Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2014) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. LSE Working Paper
Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S (2015) Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. Pharmacoeconomics 33(1):71–81. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0223-1
Mühlbacher A, Bridges J, Bethge S, Nübling M, Gerber-Grote A, Markos Dintsios C, Scheibler F, Schwalm A, Wiegard B (2013) Choice-based conjoint analysis – pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. IQWiG Report
Phillips L (1984) A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychol 56:29–48
Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M (2014) Implementation of EUnetHTA core model(R) in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30(1):105–112. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000639
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (2008) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Springer, The Netherlands
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2006) Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Springer, New York
Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R, Steiner M (2005) Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res 164(3):760–777
Suedel BC, Kim J, Banks CJ (2009) Comparison of the direct scoring method and multi-criteria decision analysis for dredged material management decision making, 2009 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS,39180-6199
Suner A, Çelikoğlu CC, Dicle O, Sökmen S (2012) Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer. Artif Intell Med 56(1):59–68
Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, Kind P, Goetghebeur MM, International Task Force on Decision C (2013) Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Asses Health Care 29(4):456–465. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000573
Thokala P, Duenas A (2012) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 15(8):1172–1181. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.015
Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, Goetghebeur MM (2011) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 11:329. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-329
Tu C, Fang Y, Huang Z, Tan R (2013) Application of the analytic hierarchy process to a risk assessment of emerging infectious diseases in shaoxing city in southern china. Jpn J Infect Dis 67(6):417–422
van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, IJzerman MJ (2008) The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(3):457–462
van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M (2014) Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc: C/E 12:22. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-22
Velasquezl M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66
Weernink MGM, Janus SIM, van Til JA, Raisch DW, van Manen JG, Ijzerman MJ (2014) A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation method in healthcare decision making. Pharm Med 28:175–185
Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J (2014) A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient-Patient-Cent Outcomes Res 7(4):365–386
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marsh, K., Thokala, P., Mühlbacher, A., Lanitis, T. (2017). Incorporating Preferences and Priorities into MCDA: Selecting an Appropriate Scoring and Weighting Technique. In: Marsh, K., Goetghebeur, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R. (eds) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47538-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47540-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)