The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement

References

• Anderson N. H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psych. Rev. (1970) 77(3):153–170Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernasconi M., Choirat C., Seri R. Measurement by subjective estimation: Testing for separable representations. J. Math. Psych. (2008) 52(3):184–201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H., Veit C. T. Scale convergence as a criterion for rescaling: Information integration with difference, ratio, and averaging tasks. Perception Psychophysics (1974) 15(1):7–15Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L., Wakker P. P. Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Sci. (2001) 47(11):1498–1514Link, Google Scholar
• Budescu D. V., Zwick E., Rapoport A. A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling. Appl. Psych. Measurement (1986) 10(1):69–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford G. B., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. J. Math. Psych. (1985) 29(4):387–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Jong P. A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities. J. Math. Psych. (1984) 28(4):467–478Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. S. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Sci. (1990) 36(3):249–258Link, Google Scholar
• Ellermeier W., Faulhammer G. Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens' ratio-scaling approach. I. Loudness production. Perception Psychophysics (2000) 62(8):1505–1511Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forman E. H., Gass S. I. The analytic hierarchy process—An exposition. Oper. Res. (2001) 49(4):469–486Link, Google Scholar
• Fremy D., Fremy M.Quid 2001 (2001) (Robert Laffont, Paris) Google Scholar
• Genest C., Rivest L.-P. A statistical look at Saaty's method of estimating pairwise preferences expressed on a ratio scale. J. Math. Psych. (1994) 38(4):477–496Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harker P. T., Vargas L. G. Reply to “Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” by J. S. Dyer. Management Sci. (1990) 36(3):269–273Link, Google Scholar
• Köbberling V., Wakker P. P. Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: A generalized and simplified technique. Math. Oper. Res. (2003) 28(3):395–423Link, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. Reduction invariance and Prelec's weighting functions. J. Math. Psych. (2001) 45(1):167–179Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. A psychophysical theory of intensity proportions, joint presentations, and matches. Psych. Rev. (2002) 109(3):520–532Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. Symmetric and asymmetric matching of joint presentations. Psych. Rev. (2004) 111(2):446–454Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. “Symmetric and asymmetric matching of joint presentations”: Correction to Luce (2004). Psych. Rev. (2008) 115(3):601Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michell J.Measurement in Psychology: A Critical History of a Methodological Concept (1999) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narens L. A theory of ratio magnitude estimation. J. Math. Psych. (1996) 40(2):109–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narens L. The irony of measurement by subjective estimations. J. Math. Psych. (2002) 46(6):769–788Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pérez J. Some comments on Saaty's AHP. Management Sci. (1995) 41(6):1091–1095Link, Google Scholar
• Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica (1998) 66(3):497–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L. A scaling method for priorities in a hierarchichal structure. J. Math. Psych. (1977) 15(3):234–281Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L.The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Sci. (1986) 32(7):841–855Link, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L. An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Sci. (1990) 36(3):259–268Link, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. L. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary? Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2003) 145(1):85–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepard R. N., Savage C. W. On the status of “direct” psychological measurement. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (1978) 9(University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis) 441–490Google Scholar
• Smith J. E., von Winterfeldt D. Decision analysis in Management Science. Management Sci. (2004) 50(5):561–574Link, Google Scholar
• Steingrimsson R., Luce R. D. Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments—I: Behavioral properties of summations and productions. J. Math. Psych. (2005a) 49(4):290–307Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steingrimsson R., Luce R. D. Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments—II: Behavioral properties linking summations and productions. J. Math. Psych. (2005b) 49(4):308–319Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steingrimsson R., Luce R. D. Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: IV. Forms for the weighting function. J. Math. Psych. (2007) 51(1):29–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stevens S. S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science (1946) 103(2684):677–680Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stevens S. S.Handbook of Experimental Pyschology (1951) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Stevens S. S.Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects (1975) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5(4):297–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zahedi F. A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econom. Planning Sci. (1986) 20(6):347–354Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimmer K. Examining the validity of numerical ratios in loudness fractionation. Perception Psychophysics (2005) 67(4):569–579Crossref, Google Scholar