A Comparison of Pairs, Triads and Quads in Multi-Attribute Decision Making

The pair-wise comparison technique is a common approach for completing multi-attribute evaluations. However, this approach has limitations, especially for larger attribute sets, where the use of the technique is time-consuming because it requires a relatively large number of comparisons. The authors conducted an experiment to test the efficacy of three alternative approaches for eliciting preferences, specifically pairs, triads and quads. Ninety-three subjects used one of the three approaches to rank the importance of fifteen items. The results indicate that those employing the pair-wise approach took significantly longer than those using the triad or quad approach. In addition, the triad technique yielded more accurate results (compared to the pair and quad methods). Finally, the quad approach generated fewer intransitivities than the pair-wise or triad approaches. No differences were observed across the three techniques with respect to reliability or perceived ease of use. Implications are provided for both practitioners and researchers.