arbiter
JournalsAccount

Assessing inconsistencies in the FITradeoff method: a comparison of two preference modeling paradigms

Evanielle Barbosa Ferreira et al.

International Transactions in Operational Research2026https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.70152article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Many decision‐making processes are susceptible to errors and inconsistencies introduced by decision‐makers (DMs). The development of decision support systems (DSS) has brought about a way to guide DMs through complex decision scenarios. However, due to the complexity of the process, inconsistencies may still arise. In this context, this study investigates inconsistencies presented in DMs preference modeling during the use of the FITradeoff method. This method combines two preference modeling paradigms—holistic evaluation and elicitation by decomposition—to support DMs in expressing their preferences, allowing DMs to alternate between these two paradigms during the process. In this context, on combining both paradigms, inconsistencies can occur during the FITradeoff process. Hence, this study analyzes the occurrence of inconsistencies. For this, 86 DMs applied the method in their own decision problems. The results indicate that the FITradeoff method presents a lower inconsistency rate compared with the Swing and the classical Tradeoff procedures.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.70152

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{evanielle2026,
  title        = {{Assessing inconsistencies in the FITradeoff method: a comparison of two preference modeling paradigms}},
  author       = {Evanielle Barbosa Ferreira et al.},
  journal      = {International Transactions in Operational Research},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.70152},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Assessing inconsistencies in the FITradeoff method: a comparison of two preference modeling paradigms

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.