Group decision evaluation on the quality of pure electronic journals

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quan Zhang ◽  
Yue-xin Sun ◽  
Hao Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Group Decision ◽  
Electronic Journals

POLARYZACJA GRUPOWA W WARUNKACH DEBATY DELIBERATYWNEJ

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Wesołowska
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Group Consensus ◽  
Group Polarization ◽  
Normative Requirements

In social psychology the group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisionsthat are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members. This phenomenon constitutesa potential obstacle to positive outcomes attributed to deliberative debates. A deliberative debateis a particular kind of a group discussion tasked with fi nding group consensus on controversialissues. The idea of deliberation originates from the writings of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, AmyGutmann and Denis Thompson. Deliberative debate imposes numerous normative requirementson the communication, relationships among the disputants and their approach to the issue underdiscussion. These normative requirements make a big difference between deliberative debates andthe situations in which the phenomenon of polarization was observed. Thus, we presume that indeliberative debates conditions the phenomenon of group polarization may be limited.The paper investigates the following questions: would the normative conditions of deliberationlimit the occurrence of polarization in discussing groups? and What infl uence (if any) would thepolarization process have on the quality of group decision? In the light of the empirical data we concluded what follows: (1) In 50% of the analyzed casesof group discussion the phenomenon of group polarization was observed despite the normativeconditions of deliberation. (2) The occurrence of group polarization in some cases coincided withmaking the fi nal decisions which did not alter the initial preferences of the disputants (but did nottotally predestinated the fi nal outcome).

Consolidation of Usability Problems With Novice Evaluators Re-Examined in Individual vs. Collaborative Settings

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 525-538
Author(s):  
Rebekka Hoffmann ◽  
Anna Helga Jónsdóttir ◽  
Ebba Thora Hvannberg
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Usability Testing ◽  
Accuracy Rate ◽  
Consolidation Process ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Usability Problems ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Within Subjects

Abstract Usability testing can involve multiple users and evaluators. In such cases, consolidating usability problems (UPs) constitutes an essential part of data analysis. In a between-subjects design, this study aims to re-examine a previous study by comparing the results of novice evaluators merging UPs individually vs. collaboratively and to assess the quality of the final UP lists, by computing the merging rate and the accuracy rate, respectively. Law and Hvannberg compared the results of evaluators merging UPs individually vs. collaboratively in a within-subjects design, revealing a tendency towards merging UPs in collaborative settings. In the present study, 45 novice evaluators consolidated four UP lists into a single UP master list while working alone or with a partner. The results showed no significant difference between evaluators in the two settings, suggesting that the UP consolidation process does not benefit from positive group decision effects.

A Multicriteria Multilevel Group Decision Method for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya A. Sodenkamp ◽  
Leena Suhl
Keyword(s):  
Supplier Selection ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Order Allocation ◽  
Decision Factors ◽  
Selection Decisions ◽  
Allocation Decisions

Supplier selection is an integral part of supply chain management (SCM). It plays a prominent role in the purchasing activity of manufacturing and trading companies. Evaluation of vendors and procurement planning requires simultaneous consideration of tangible and intangible decision factors, some of which may conflict. A large body of analytical and intuitive methods has been proposed to trade off conflicting aspects of realism and optimize the selection process. In the large companies the fields of decision makers’ (DMs) expertise are highly distributed and DMs’ authorities are unequal. On the other hand, the decision components and their interactions are very complex. These facts restrict the effectiveness of using the existing methods in practice. The authors present a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) method which facilitates making supplier selection decisions by the distributed groups of experts and improves quality of the order allocation decisions. A numerical example is presented and applicability of the proposed algorithm is demonstrated in the Raiffeisen Westfalen Mitte, eG in Germany.

A self-testing cloud model for multi-criteria group decision making

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1767-1783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Cheng Chang ◽  
Hui Wang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Cloud Model ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Composite Scale ◽  
Self Testing

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to select the best scaling coefficient during the quantitative-qualitative conversion. Design/methodology/approach – Cloud model can describe the qualitative concept of randomness and fuzziness, achieve uncertain transition between qualitative and quantitative in the field of multi-criteria group decision and has been receiving widespread attention. This paper discusses scale conversion issues of the cloud model when evaluating qualitative information. In order to improve the accuracy of the evaluation on multi-attribute decision problems based on uncertainty of natural linguistic information, this paper proposes a method of self-testing cloud model based on a composite scale (with the exponential scale and the scale as a basis). Findings – Through experimental verification results show that under composite scale, the best suitable selection of can effectively improve the accuracy and reliability of decision results. Originality/value – This research presents a new approach to determine the suitable value for coefficient based on uncertain knowledge of natural multi-criteria group decision making, and gives concrete steps and examples. This method has positive significance to improve the quality of qualitative and quantitative conversion based on cloud model.

The impact of four conferencing formats on the efficiency and quality of small group decision making in a laboratory experiment setting

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary P Radford ◽  
Barry F Morganstern ◽  
Charles W McMickle ◽  
Jennifer K Lehr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Laboratory Experiment ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The role of faith in mental healthcare: Philosophy, psychology and practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 419-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Foreman
Keyword(s):  
Group Decision ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
List Type ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Therapeutic Choice ◽  
Effective Assessment ◽  
Optimal Implementation

SummaryIt is time to improve clinical approaches to faith in mental healthcare, particularly in psychotherapy. Understood as a psychological trait, faith has potentially great personal salience and introduces socially desirable biases into human reasoning. Therapies may have faith-informed components, either explicitly, or (as with some forms of mindfulness) implicitly, which may modify the patient's faith as well as producing symptomatic change. In this narrative review, the ethics of faith's inclusion in therapy is briefly appraised. The psychology of faith is discussed, and a model of the influence of the practitioner's faith on therapeutic choice is presented. Finally, faith-informed approaches to practice, including their impact on therapeutic effectiveness, are considered and recommendations made for their optimal implementation.LEARNING OBJECTIVES•Understand the main types, characteristics and likely effectiveness of faith-informed therapies versus their secular equivalents•Develop a framework for effective assessment of the contribution of faith to a patient's quality of life, and use this to balance the advantages and risks of employing a faith-informed therapy•Be aware of the unavoidability of bias in the assessment of faith, and learn how to minimise this bias, if necessary by making a group decision

The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: an experimental study of small group decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Persson ◽  
Peter Esaiasson ◽  
Mikael Gilljam
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Experimental Study ◽  
High School Students ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
School Students ◽  
Primary Finding ◽  
Legitimacy Beliefs

In democratic theory, two frequently occurring ideas are that deliberation and direct voting in referendums can increase perceived legitimacy of democratic procedures. To evaluate this claim, we conducted a controlled field experiment in which 215 high school students participated by being subject to a decision on a collective issue. The decision was made either by direct voting or as a non-voting procedure (decision made by the teacher). Additionally, we manipulated the opportunities for deliberation prior to the decision. Our primary finding is that both voting and deliberation significantly increase perceived legitimacy compared with a procedure in which these components are absent. However, applying both voting and deliberation does not yield significantly higher perceived legitimacy than applying voting without deliberation. We also found that perceived influence in the decision-making process mediates the effect of both voting and deliberation, whereas the epistemic quality of the decision, which is heavily emphasized in deliberative democratic theory, gained no support as a mediator.

scholarly journals Group decision making and Quality-of-Information in e-Health systems

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Lima ◽  
P. Novais ◽  
R. Costa ◽  
J. Bulas Cruz ◽  
J. Neves
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Quality Of Information
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document