A multi‐criterion experimental comparison of three multi‐attribute weight measurement methods

The research compared three major multi‐attribute weight measurement methods using multiple criteria: theoretical validity, predictive performance, and perceived performance. Major findings include (1) all three methods are theoretically valid using the EAM (Equal Weight Averaging Model) as the standard of comparison, (2) EAM outperforms SMART (Simple Multi‐Attribute Rating Technique) and SMART outperforms AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) in terms of predictive performance, (3) in terms of perceived performance, EAM is considered more difficult and less preferred than AHP, but has equal trustworthiness. The research has demonstrated how self‐estimation methods for multi‐attribute analysis can be verified and improved theoretically and empirically by using weights and values from the EAM model as a theoretical validity standard. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.