title: Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is an increased interest in the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support regulatory and reimbursement decision making. The EVIDEM framework was developed to provide pragmatic multi-criteria decision support in health care, to estimate the value of healthcare interventions, and to aid in priority-setting. The objectives of this study were to test 1) the influence of different weighting techniques on the overall outcome of an MCDA exercise, 2) the discriminative power in weighting different criteria of such techniques, and 3) whether different techniques result in similar weights in weighting the criteria set proposed by the EVIDEM framework.
  
  
  METHODS
  A sample of 60 Dutch and Canadian students participated in the study. Each student used an online survey to provide weights for 14 criteria with two different techniques: a five-point rating scale and one of the following techniques selected randomly: ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparison and best worst scaling.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results of this study indicate that there is no effect of differences in weights on value estimates at the group level. On an individual level, considerable differences in criteria weights and rank order occur as a result of the weight elicitation method used, and the ability of different techniques to discriminate in criteria importance. Of the five techniques tested, the pair-wise comparison of criteria has the highest ability to discriminate in weights when fourteen criteria are compared.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  When weights are intended to support group decisions, the choice of elicitation technique has negligible impact on criteria weights and the overall value of an innovation. However, when weights are used to support individual decisions, the choice of elicitation technique influences outcome and studies that use dissimilar techniques cannot be easily compared. Weight elicitation through pairwise comparison of criteria is preferred when taking into account its superior ability to discriminate between criteria and respondents' preferences.
authors.affiliation: University of Twente, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Janine
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: van Til
authors.affiliation: University of Twente, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Catharina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Groothuis-Oudshoorn
authors.affiliation: University of Twente, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Marijke
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lieferink
authors.affiliation: University of Rochester, Rochester, NY USA.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Dolan
authors.affiliation: LASER Analytica & University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
authors.forename: Mireille
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Goetghebeur
keywords: Decision support; Health care; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Preferences; Weighting techniques