An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context

2011 ◽  
Vol 212 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Fu ◽  
Shanlin Yang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Evidential Reasoning ◽  
Group Consensus ◽  
Attribute Weight ◽  
Feedback Model

POLARYZACJA GRUPOWA W WARUNKACH DEBATY DELIBERATYWNEJ

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Wesołowska
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Group Consensus ◽  
Group Polarization ◽  
Normative Requirements

In social psychology the group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisionsthat are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members. This phenomenon constitutesa potential obstacle to positive outcomes attributed to deliberative debates. A deliberative debateis a particular kind of a group discussion tasked with fi nding group consensus on controversialissues. The idea of deliberation originates from the writings of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, AmyGutmann and Denis Thompson. Deliberative debate imposes numerous normative requirementson the communication, relationships among the disputants and their approach to the issue underdiscussion. These normative requirements make a big difference between deliberative debates andthe situations in which the phenomenon of polarization was observed. Thus, we presume that indeliberative debates conditions the phenomenon of group polarization may be limited.The paper investigates the following questions: would the normative conditions of deliberationlimit the occurrence of polarization in discussing groups? and What infl uence (if any) would thepolarization process have on the quality of group decision? In the light of the empirical data we concluded what follows: (1) In 50% of the analyzed casesof group discussion the phenomenon of group polarization was observed despite the normativeconditions of deliberation. (2) The occurrence of group polarization in some cases coincided withmaking the fi nal decisions which did not alter the initial preferences of the disputants (but did nottotally predestinated the fi nal outcome).

Interactive Visualization for Group Decision Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (06) ◽  
pp. 1839-1864 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bajracharya ◽  
G. Carenini ◽  
B. Chamberlain ◽  
K. Chen ◽  
D. Klein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Interactive Visualization ◽  
Visualization Tool ◽  
Domain Experts ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Identifying the best solutions to large infrastructure decisions is a context-dependent multi-dimensional multi-stakeholder challenge in which competing objectives must be identified and trade-offs made. Our aim is to identify and explore features in an interactive visualization tool to help make group decision analysis more participatory, transparent, and comprehensible. We extended the interactive visualization tool ValueCharts to create Group ValueCharts. The new tool was introduced in two real-world scenarios in which stakeholders were in the midst of wrestling with decisions about infrastructure investment. We modeled the alternatives under consideration, for both scenarios, using prescribed criteria identified by domain experts. Participants in both groups were given instructions on how to use the tool to represent their preferences. Preferences for all participants were then displayed and discussed. The discussions were audio-recorded and the participants were surveyed to evaluate usability. The results indicate that participants felt the tool improved group interaction and information exchange and made the discussion more participatory. They expressed that visualizing individual preferences improved the ability to analyze decision outcomes based on everyone’s preferences. Additionally, the participants strongly concurred that the tool revealed disagreements and agreements and helped identify sticking points. These results suggest that a group decision tool that allows group members to input their individual preferences and then collectively probe into any differences makes the process of decision-making more participatory, transparent, and comprehensible and increases the quality and quantity of information exchange.

scholarly journals Development of a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index (GTI) using multicriteria decision analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M Miloslavsky ◽  
Ray P Naden ◽  
Johannes W J Bijlsma ◽  
Paul A Brogan ◽  
E Sherwood Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Multicriteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Clinical Judgement ◽  
Consensus Methods ◽  
Group Consensus ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Toxicity Index ◽  
Multicriteria Decision ◽  
External Group ◽  
The Usa

ObjectivesTo develop a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index (GTI) to assess glucocorticoid (GC)-related morbidity and GC-sparing ability of other therapies.MethodsNineteen experts on GC use and outcome measures from 11 subspecialties participated. Ten experts were from the USA; nine from Canada, Europe or Australia. Group consensus methods and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) were used. A Composite GTI and Specific List comprise the overall GTI. The Composite GTI reflects toxicity likely to change during a clinical trial. The Composite GTI toxicities occur commonly, vary with GC exposure, and are weighted and scored. Relative weights for items in the Composite GTI were derived by group consensus and MCDA. The Specific List is designed to capture GC toxicity not included in the Composite GTI. The Composite GTI was evaluated by application to paper cases by the investigators and an external group of 17 subspecialists.ResultsThirty-one toxicity items were included in the Composite GTI and 23 in the Specific List. Composite GTI evaluation showed high inter-rater agreement (investigators κ 0.88, external raters κ 0.90). To assess the degree to which the Composite GTI corresponds to expert clinical judgement, participants ranked 15 cases by clinical judgement in order of highest to lowest GC toxicity. Expert rankings were then compared with case ranking by the Composite GTI, yielding excellent agreement (investigators weighted κ 0.87, external raters weighted κ 0.77).ConclusionsWe describe the development and initial evaluation of a comprehensive instrument for the assessment of GC toxicity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document