2019
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making

Abstract: Human decision making involving many alternatives is encumbered with inconsistent prioritization. Although inconsistency is assumed to grow with the number of comparisons, it is shown to be reduced by conscious awareness under certain conditions. This study experimentally investigated the effect of repeating a criteria ranking task on inconsistency scores as measured by four different inconsistency coefficients. A total of 107 participants were engaged in a selection task that comprised of ranking from 3 to 10… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, each leg was assessed only once, without a trial run. It is acknowledged that performing more trials may have improved the results' reliability [11]; however, the physical exhaustion of patients, affecting the results, could not be excluded. In addition, the digital gait analysis tool used was designed to measure each foot individually.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, each leg was assessed only once, without a trial run. It is acknowledged that performing more trials may have improved the results' reliability [11]; however, the physical exhaustion of patients, affecting the results, could not be excluded. In addition, the digital gait analysis tool used was designed to measure each foot individually.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the judgment from three sub-groups of experts was not consistent, the items should be rejected. Specifically, intergroup consistency examination was to ensure the ratings by different subgroup experts do not violate monotonicity or reversals of preferences (Bureš et al, 2019). More specifically, the examination of intergroup consistency ensured no judgment difference, for example, the judgment difference raised by rater bias or outlier among three subgroups of experts.…”
Section: Generate Items To Represent the Constructmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As far as our knowledge extends, there are only a few studies dealing with alternative comparison matrices based on empirically collected data. For a few exceptions from this practice, see for instance [20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. These studies are grounded either in a demonstrative experiment [27], or a regular experimental study [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%