A Comparison of Different Measurement Scales Adopted in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Based on Evaluation Test Criteria
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study reviewed and compared seven measurement scales adopted in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), including Saaty’s 1–9 linear scale, power, geometric, logarithmic, root-square, inverse linear, and balanced scales. The scales were evaluated through twelve criteria covering gradation, scale range, value distribution, midpoint error, discreteness, finiteness, discrimination, ratio preservation, parameter changes, priority effects, sensitivity to pairwise-comparison changes, and consistency. Numerical examples were used to examine how alternative scales affected priorities and rankings. The results showed that no single alternative scale consistently dominated the benchmark across all evaluation criteria. Several scales performed better on specific criteria, but their advantages were not uniform. Overall, Saaty’s 1–9 scale demonstrated the most balanced performance across the tests and remained the most robust general-purpose scale among the alternatives examined.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Azadfallah, M. (2017a). The impacts of aggregation rules, measurement scales and normalization methods on ranking of alternatives in AHP. National Journal of System and Information Technology, 10(1), 1-22.
Azadfallah, M. (2017b). The effect of scale ranges on priorities and discrimination level of alternatives in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of Business Applied Information Science, 5(1), 24-30.
Azadfallah, M. (2017c). The impact of the scale elements alteration on priorities in Analytic Hierarchy Process technique. International Journal of Business Analytics and Intelligence, 5(1), 43-51.
Azadfallah, M. (2025). Alternative Measurement Scales in Multi Criterion Decision Making Context, Journal of Management Research, 24(2),100-115.
Barzilai, J. (2006). On the mathematical modeling of measurement. http://arxiv.org/math.GM/0609555, Canada, 1-4.
Brans, J. P. and Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. Ch. 5, in: Multiple criteria decision analysis- state of the art survey, (eds.): J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Springer.
Cox M. A. A. (2009). Multidimensional scaling as an aid for the Analytic Network and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Data Science, 7 (2009), 381-396.
Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2017.
Dong, Y., Xu, Y., Li, H. and Dai. M. (2008). A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2008), 229-242.
Forman, E. and Selly, M. A. (2001). Decision by objectives. World Scientific Press.
Franek, J. and Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12(2014), 164-173.
Goepel, K. D. (2019). Comparison of judgment scales of the Analytic Hierarchy Process- A new approach. International Journal of Information technology & Decision Making, 18(02), 445-463.
Grunig. R. and Kuhn, R. (2005). Successful decision making, a systematic approach to complex problem. Translated from German by: A. Clark and C. O'Dea, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Harker, P. T. and Vargas, L. G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Processes. Management Science, 33(11), 1383-1403.
Ishizaka, A. (2019). Analytic Hierarchy Process and its extensions, in: M. Doumpos et al. (eds.), new perspective in multi criteria decision making. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
Ishizaka, A. and Labib, A. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Processes and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), 201-220.
Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., and Kaplan, T. (2011). Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 700-710.
Ji, P. and Jiang, R. (2003). Scale transitivity in the AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(8), 896-905.
Lipovetsky, S. (2021). AHP in non linear scaling: from two-envelope problem to modeling by predictors. Production, 31(2021), e20210007. doi: 10.1590/0103-6513.20210007.
Lootsma, F. A. (1993). Context-related scaling of human judgment in the multiplicative AHP, SMART, and ELECTRE, working paper, IIASA, Austria, 1-22.
Luce, R. D. (1997). Quantification and symmetry: commentary on Michell, quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88(1997), 395-398.
Lukinskiy, V., Lukinskiy, V., Bazhina, D. (2025). Refining the analytic hierarchy process: A statistical and methodological exploration of expert judgments. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 125(2025), 526-536.
Mirhedayatian, S. M. and Saen, R. F. (2011). A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(2011), 1585-1595.
Monat J. P. (2009). The benefits of global scaling in multi criteria decision analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 492-508.
Mukherjee, K. (2017). Supplier selection-an MCDA-based approach. Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2017.
Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Ozsahin, I., Ozsahin, U. and Uzun, B. (2021). Applications of multicriteria decision making theories in: healthcare and biomedical engineering, Ch. 2, (eds.): I. Ozsahin, U. Ozsahin, and B. Uzun, Elsevier Inc.
Poyhonen, M. A., Hamalainen, R. P. and Salo, A. A. (1997). An experiment on the numerical modeling of verbal ratio statements. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(1997), 1-10.
Qu, Z., Wan, C., Yang, Z., and Lee, P. T. W. (2018). A discourse of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches. (eds.): P T. W. Lee, Z. Yang, multi criteria decision making in maritime studies and logistics, Springer International Publishing AG 2018.
Romanchak, V. (2023). The Problem of the Adequacy of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Solution. In: Analytic Hierarchy Process - Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications ,Chapter metrics overview, Chapter 5, Edited by: Fabio De Felice and Antonella Petrillo, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1001308, 2023.
Royo, C. S. and Chiclana, F. (2026). Contribution of the ratio scale of expert judgments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications,296, 2026, 128938, 1-11.
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory. RWS Publication, 6.
Saaty, T. L. (2001a). Decision making with dependence and feedback, Vol. IX of the AHP series, RWS Publication.
Saaty, T. L. (2001b). Deriving the AHP 1-9 scale from first principles. Proceedings of the 6th ISAHP 2001 Bern. Switzerland, pp. 397-401, August, 2001.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making. Why pair wise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the Analytic Hierarchy/ Network Process. Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A. Mat., 102(2), 251-318.
Saaty, T. L. and Daji, E. (2015). When is a decision making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluation multicriteria decision making methods. International Journal of Information Technology & decision Making, IJITDM-D-15-00031R1, 1-18.
Saaty, T. L. and Kearns, K. P. (1991). Analytical planning, the organization of systems. Vol. IV, the AHP series, RWS Publications Pittsburgh, USA.
Saaty, T. L. and Vargas, L. G. (1991). The logic of priorities. RWS Publication, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
Salo A. and R. Hamalainen (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(1997), 309-319.
Sarie, W. S. (1997). Measurement theory: Frequently asked question. Version 3, Sep 14, 1997. URL: ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html, USA.
Sato Y. (2001). The impact on scaling on the pair wise comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. ISAHP, 2001, Berns Switzerland, August 2-4, 421-430.
Sequra, M., Maroto, C., Belton, V., Ginestar, C. and Marques, I. (2019). Collaborative management of ecosystem services in natural park based on AHP and PROMETHEE. In: S. Huber, M. J. Geiger and A. T. D. Almedia (Eds.), Springer Natural Switzerland AG 2019.
Shinohara, M., Miyake, C., and Ohsawa, K. (2001). Why not use the Entropy method for weight estimations. Proceedings-6th ISAHP 2001, Berns, Switzerland, August 2-4, 2001, 431-434.
Siraj, S. (2011). Preference elicitation from pair wise comparison multi-criteria decision making. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, Supervisor: L. Mikhailov and J. Keane, UK.
Starczewski, T. (2017). Remark on the impact of the adopted scale on the priority estimation qualities. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computational Mechanics, 16(3), 105-116.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677-680.
Triantaphyllou, E., Lootsma, F. A., Pardalos, P., and Mann, S. H. (1994). On the evaluation and application of different scales for quantifying pair wise comparisons in fuzzy sets. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 3(1994), 133-155.
Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., Sanchez, S. N., and Ray, T. (1998). Multi-criteria decision making: An operations research approach. Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (J. G. Webster, Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Newyork, NY, 15(1998), 175-186.
Voogd, J. H. (1982). Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. PhD thesis, Gouda, The Netherlands, 1982.
Wedley W. C. (2001). AHP answers to problems with known composite values. ISAHP 2001, Berns Switzerland, August 2-4, 2001, 551-560.