Advertisement

A Pearson-like correlation-based TOPSIS method with interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy uncertainty and its application to multiple criteria decision analysis of stroke rehabilitation treatments

  • Lun-Hui Ho
  • Yu-Li Lin
  • Ting-Yu ChenEmail author
Original Article
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

This paper extends one of the most extensively used multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions (TOPSIS), to adapt to highly complicated uncertain environments based on interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy (IVPF) sets. In contrast to classical TOPSIS methods, this paper develops a novel concept of Pearson-like IVPF correlation coefficients instead of distance measures to not only construct a useful and effective association measure between two IVPF characteristics but also depict the outranking relationship of IVPF information. Moreover, this paper proposes the (weighted) IVPF correlation-based closeness coefficients to establish a Pearson-like correlation-based TOPSIS model to manage MCDA problems within the IVPF environment. In particular, there is a definite improvement in determining the closeness coefficient required in the TOPSIS procedure. This paper considers anchored judgments with respect to the positive- and negative-ideal IVPF solutions and provides new approach- and avoidance-oriented definitions for the IVPF correlation-based closeness coefficient, which is entirely different from the traditional definition of relative closeness in TOPSIS. Furthermore, this paper proposes a comprehensive IVPF correlation-based closeness index to balance the consequences between ultra-approach orientation and ultra-avoidance orientation and acquire the ultimate compromise solution for decision support and aid. The feasibility and practicability of the developed methodology are illustrated by a practical MCDA problem of rehabilitation treatment for hospitalized patients with acute stroke. The application results, along with experimentations and comparative analyses, demonstrate that the developed methods are rational and effective.

Keywords

Multiple criteria decision analysis TOPSIS Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set Pearson-like IVPF correlation coefficient Correlation-based closeness coefficient Rehabilitation treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of the respected editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which helped to improve the overall quality of the paper. The authors are grateful for grant funding support from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 105-2410-H-182-007-MY3) and Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (BMRP 574 and CMRPD2F0203) during the completion of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Ang YH, Chan DK, Heng DM, Shen Q (2003) Patient outcomes and length of stay in a stroke unit offering both acute and rehabilitation services. Med J Australia 178(7):333–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biswas A, Sarkar B (2019) Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach through point operator-based similarity measures for multicriteria group decision making. Kybernetes 48(3):496–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabrerizo FJ, Ureña MR, Pedrycz W, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) Building consensus in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 255:115–127MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cayir Ervural B, Zaim S, Demirel OF, Aydin Z, Delen D (2018) An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82(1):1538–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen T-Y (2018) A novel risk evaluation method of technological innovation using an inferior ratio-based assignment model in the face of complex uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 95:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen T-Y (2018) A novel VIKOR method with an application to multiple criteria decision analysis for hospital-based post-acute care within a highly complex uncertain environment. Neural Comput Appl 1:11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3326-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen T-Y (2019) Multiple criteria decision analysis under complex uncertainty: a Pearson-like correlation-based Pythagorean fuzzy compromise approach. Int J Intell Syst 34(1):114–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Çoban V, Onar SÇ (2018) Pythagorean fuzzy engineering economic analysis of solar power plants. Soft Comput 22(15):5007–5020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Du Y, Hou F, Zafar W, Yu Q, Zhai Y (2017) A novel method for multiattribute decision making with interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy linguistic information. Int J Intell Syst 32(10):1085–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwivedi G, Srivastava RK, Srivastava SK (2018) A generalised fuzzy TOPSIS with improved closeness coefficient. Expert Syst Appl 96:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farajpour F, Yousefli A (2018) Information flow in supply chain: a fuzzy TOPSIS parameters ranking. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag 6(2):181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garg H (2017) A novel improved accuracy function for interval valued Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its applications in the decision-making process. Int J Intell Syst 32(12):1247–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garg H (2018) Generalised Pythagorean fuzzy geometric interactive aggregation operators using Einstein operations and their application to decision making. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 30(6):763–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gul M, Ak MF (2018) A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. J Clean Prod 196:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guleria A, Bajaj RK (2018) On Pythagorean fuzzy soft matrices, operations and their applications in decision making and medical diagnosis. Soft Comput 1:11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3419-z zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hwang C-L, Lai Y-J, Liu T-Y (1993) A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Comput Oper Res 20(8):889–899zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan F, Khan MSA, Shahzad M, Abdullah S (2019) Pythagorean cubic fuzzy aggregation operators and their application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(1):595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langhorne P, Pollock A (2002) What are the components of effective stroke unit care? Age Aging 31(5):365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liang D, Darko AP, Xu Z, Quan W (2018) The linear assignment method for multicriteria group decision making based on interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy Bonferroni mean. Int J Intell Syst 33(11):2101–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liang D, Xu Z (2017) The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 60:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liang D, Xu Z, Liu D, Wu Y (2018) Method for three-way decisions using ideal TOPSIS solutions at Pythagorean fuzzy information. Inf Sci 435:282–295MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liang W, Zhang X, Liu M (2015) The maximizing deviation method based on interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy weighted aggregating operator for multiple criteria group decision analysis. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2015, Article ID 746572: 15 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/746572
  24. 24.
    Liao H, Xu Z, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2018) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(7):2084–2110MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin Y-L, Ho L-H, Yeh S-L, Chen T-Y (2019) A Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method based on novel correlation measures and its application to multiple criteria decision analysis of inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Int J Comput Intell Syst 12(1):410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu Y, Qin Y, Han Y (2018) Multiple criteria decision making with probabilities in interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy setting. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(2):558–571MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Massanet S, Riera JV, Torrens J, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new linguistic computational model based on discrete fuzzy numbers for computing with words. Inf Sci 258:277–290MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen VQ, PrvuBettger J, Guerrier T, Hirsch MA, Thomas JG, Pugh TM, Rhoads CF (2015) Factors associated with discharge to home versus discharge to institutional care after inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 96(7):1297–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nie R-X, Tian Z-P, Wang J-Q, Hu J-H (2019) Pythagorean fuzzy multiple criteria decision analysis based on Shapley fuzzy measures and partitioned normalized weighted Bonferroni mean operator. Int J Intell Syst 34(2):297–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peng X, Li W (2019) Algorithms for interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy sets in emergency decision making based on multiparametric similarity measures and WDBA. IEEE Access 7:7419–7441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peng X, Yang Y (2016) Fundamental properties of interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators. Int J Intell Syst 31(5):444–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahman K, Ali A, Abdullah S, Amin F (2018) Approaches to multi-attribute group decision making based on induced interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein aggregation operator. New Math Nat Comput 14(3):343–361MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rahman K, Khan MA, Ullah M, Fahmi A (2017) Multiple attribute group decision making for plant location selection with Pythagorean fuzzy weighted geometric aggregation operator. Nucleus 54(1):66–74Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rice DB, McIntyre A, Mirkowski M, Janzen S, Viana R, Britt E, Teasell R (2017) Patient-centered goal setting in a hospital-based outpatient stroke rehabilitation center. PM & R 9(9):856–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ringelstein EB, Chamorro A, Kaste M, Langhorne P, Leys D, Lyrer P, Thijs V, Thomassen L, Toni D (2013) European Stroke Organisation recommendations to establish a stroke unit and stroke center. Stroke 44(3):828–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sadic S, de Sousa JP, Crispim JA (2018) A two-phase MILP approach to integrate order, customer and manufacturer characteristics into dynamic manufacturing network formation and operational planning. Expert Syst Appl 96:462–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sangaiah AK, Gopal J, Basu A, Subramaniam PR (2017) An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. Neural Comput Appl 28(1):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sawabe M, Momosaki R, Hasebe K, Sawaguchi A, Kasuga S, Asanuma D, Suzuki S, Miyauchi N, Abo M (2018) Rehabilitation characteristics in high-performance hospitals after acute stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 27(9):2431–2435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shen F, Ma X, Li Z, Xu Z, Cai D (2018) An extended intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on a new distance measure with an application to credit risk evaluation. Inf Sci 428:105–119MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh S, Garg H (2017) Distance measures between type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to multicriteria decision-making process. Appl Intell 46(4):788–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Viswanathan A, Rakich SM, Engel C, Snider R, Rosand J, Greenberg SM, Smith EE (2006) Antiplatelet use after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 66(2):206–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walczak D, Rutkowska A (2017) Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Eur J Oper Res 260(2):706–714MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wan S-P, Li S-Q, Dong J-Y (2018) A three-phase method for Pythagorean fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making and application to haze management. Comput Ind Eng 123:348–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wan S-P, Qin Y-L, Dong J-Y (2017) A hesitant fuzzy mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with hesitant fuzzy truth degrees. Knowl Based Syst 138:232–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu T, Liu X, Liu F (2018) An interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS model for large scale group decision making problems with social network information. Inf Sci 432:392–410MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xing Y, Zhang R, Wang J, Zhu X (2018) Some new Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet–Frank aggregation operators for multi-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(11):2189–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yager RR (2013) Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In: Proceedings of the 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting, Edmonton, Canada, June 24–28, pp 57–61Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yager RR (2014) Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(4):958–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yager RR (2016) Properties and applications of Pythagorean fuzzy sets. In: Angelov P, Sotirov S (eds) Imprecision and uncertainty in information representation and processing, studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 332. Springer, Basel, pp 119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yager RR, Abbasov AM (2013) Pythagorean membership grades, complex numbers, and decision making. Int J Intell Syst 28(5):436–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yilmazlar S, Abas F, Korfali E (2005) Comparison of ventricular drainage in poor grade patients after intracranial hemorrhage. Neurol Res 27(6):653–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yoon K (1987) A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. J Oper Res Soc 38(3):277–286zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yu C, Shao Y, Wang K, Zhang L (2019) A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 121:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zavadskas EK, Mardani A, Turskis Z, Jusoh A, Nor KM (2016) Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems—an overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15(3):645–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zeng S, Chen J, Li X (2016) A hybrid method for Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15(2):403–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang X (2016) Multicriteria Pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis: a hierarchical QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods. Inf Sci 330:104–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang X (2017) Pythagorean fuzzy clustering analysis: a hierarchical clustering algorithm with the ratio index-based ranking methods. Int J Intell Syst 33(9):1798–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang X, Xu Z (2014) Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 29(12):1061–1078MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhou J, Su W, Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2018) Multiple criteria group decision-making considering symmetry with regards to the positive and negative ideal solutions via the Pythagorean normal cloud model for application to economic decisions. Symmetry 10(5):140.  https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10050140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zyoud SH, Fuchs-Hanusch D (2017) A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Syst Appl 78:158–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NursingLinkou Chang Gung Memorial HospitalTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of NursingChang Gung University of Science and TechnologyTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Business and Management, College of ManagementChang Gung UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Industrial and Business Management, College of ManagementChang Gung UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations