Advertisement

Scaling Preferences of Different Stakeholders – Using the Example of Prioritizing Quality Requirements on User Interface Texts

  • Yiqi Li
  • Theo HeldEmail author
  • Patrick Fischer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9187)

Abstract

We propose a method of measuring preferences of various stakeholders quantitatively by combining the methods of direct ranking and complete paired comparison. We demonstrate the method using a concrete case of prioritizing quality requirements on user interface (UI) texts and report the primary empirical evaluation of the methods’ accuracy and efficiency in this application example.

Keywords

Scaling method Paired comparison Ranking Preferences of stakeholders Prioritizing requirements 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Annette Stotz and Susanne Rump for many fruitful discussions, their expert support regarding UI texts, preparing the material and supporting the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Wickelmaier, F., Umbach, N., Sering, K., Choisel, S.: Scaling sound quality using models for paired-comparison and ranking data. In: Conference Paper, DAGA 2012 Congress 38th German Annual Conference on Acoustics (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley, R.A., Terry, M.E.: Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39, 324–345 (1952)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luce, R.D.: Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dittrich, R., Katzenbeisser, W., Reisinger, H.: The analysis of rank ordered preference data based on Bradley-Terry type models. OR-Spektrum 22, 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courcoux, P., Semenou, M.: Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model. Food Qual. Prefer. 8, 353–358 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zieliński, S.K., Rumsey, F., Bech, S.: On some biases encountered in modern audio quality listening tests – a review. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 56, 427–451 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schrepp, M., Held, T., Fischer, P.: Untersuchung von Designpräferenzen mit Hilfe von Skalierungsmethoden. MMI Interaktiv - User Experience 1, 72–82 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Held, T., Fischer, P., Schrepp, M.: Scaling of input forms by a simple pair comparison approach. Libr. Hi Tech 29, 334–348 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R.: Log-lineare Bradley-Terry Modelle (LLBT) und das R Package Prefmod. In: Hatzinger, R., Dittrich, R., Salzberger, T. (eds.) Präferenzanalyse mit R: Anwendungen aus Marketing, Behavioural Finance und Human Resource Management, pp. 119–150. Facultas.wuv, Vienna (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., Shiroishi, F.: Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J. Business Research 23, 253–268 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dabic, M., Hatzinger, R.: Zielgruppenadäquate Abläufe in Konfigurationssystemen – eine Empirische Studie im Automobilmarkt: Das Paarvergleichs-Pattern-Modell für Partial Rankings. In: Hatzinger, R., Dittrich, R., Salzberger, T. (eds.) Präferenzanalyse mit R: Anwendungen aus Marketing, Behavioural Finance und Human Resource Management, pp. 119–150. Facultas.wuv, Vienna (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irtel, H.: PXLab: The Psychological Experiments Laboratory, Version 2.1.11. http://www.pxlab.de
  14. 14.
    Wickelmaier, F.: Elimination-by-Aspects (EBA) Models. R Package Manual, Version 1.7-1. http://cran.r-project.org/package=eba

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SAP SEWalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations