Determining the validity of the AHP/ANP is an important issue. This paper discusses the complex and often controversial field of validation. The debate regarding the validity of the AHP/ANP is evaluated, from which the need for a different approach is identified. The AHP/ANP is a decision-making methodology that should be located within a qualitative, subjectivist or constructivist paradigm where different measures of validating research become relevant. The goal of this paper is three-fold: First, to locate the AHP/ANP within the field of Interpretivist qualitative research; Second, to argue for the importance of validating the AHP/ANP in terms of criteria important to the decision makers rather than some objectively given or normatively defined criteria; Third, to stimulate research specifically aimed at testing the validity of the AHP/ANP in terms of decision makersâ€™ criteria.
Consensus, Constructivism, Criticisms of the AHP/ANP, Group Decision-Making, Multi-Stakeholder Groups, Qualitative Research, Quantitative Research, Sociological Paradigms, Subjectivity, Validity
Interests in Forestry Concepts Emerging from Pluralism; Unasylva 49/3; 3-10.
Aronson, JE, Dennis, AR, Hilmer, KM & Stam, A (1997). Analytical Hierarchy
Process in Group Information Exchange and Decision Making: Much Ado about
Nothing; Proceedings of the 3rd Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Indianapolis, IN; August.
Babbie, ER (2007). The Practice of Social Research; 11th Edition;
Thomson/Wadsworth; Belmont, CA.
IJAHP ARTICLE: von Solms/Validity of the AHP/ANP: Comparing Apples and Oranges
International Journal of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process
20 Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2011
Baldridge, DC, Floyd, SW & Markoczy, L (2004). Are Managers From Mars and
Academicians From Venus? Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between
Academic Quality and Practical Relevance; Strategic Management Journal, 25/11;
Bana e Costa, CA & Vansnick, J-C (2008). A Critical Analysis of the Eigenvalue
Method Used to Derive Priorities in AHP; European Journal of Operational Research
Banville, C, Landry, M, Martel, J-M & Boulaire, C (1998). A Stakeholder Approach
to MCDA; Systems Research & Behavioral Science 15/1; 15-32.
Barzilai, J (1999). On MAUT, AHP and PFM; Proceedings 5th International
Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Kobe, Japan; August; 57-60.
Barzilai, J (Forthcoming). Preference Function Modeling: The Mathematical
Foundations of Decision Theory; in Figueira, J; Greco, S & Ehrgott, M (Eds); Trends
in MCDA; Springer Verlag; Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Barzilai, J & Golany, B (1994). AHP Rank Reversal, Normalization and Aggregation
Rules; INFOR 32/2; 57-63.
Belton, V & Gear, T (1983). On a Shortcoming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic
Hierarchies; Omega 11/3; 228-230.
Bogdan, R & Biklen, S (1992). Qualitative Research for Education; 2nd Edition;
Allyn and Bacon; Boston, MA.
Bowden, B & Swartz, N (2004). Truth; The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Online
Brower, HH (2000). Group Decision Making in the Boardroom: A Model for
Effectiveness; Proceedings 2000 Annual Conference; Midwest Academy of
Management; Chicago, IL; March.
Burrell, G & Morgan, G (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis; Gower; Aldershot, UK.
Checkland, PB (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice; John Wiley & Sons;
Christensen, EW & Fjermestad, J (1997). Challenging Group Support Systems
Research: The Case for Strategic Decision Making; Group Decision and Negotiation
Clarke, MA, Anand, V & Roberson, L (2000). Resolving Meaning Interpretation in
Diverse Decision-Making Groups; Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice
Cook, TD & Campbell, DT (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis
Issues for Field Settings; Rand McNally College Publication Company; Chicago, IL.
Cooksey, RW (2000). Managerial Judgment and Decision Making; in Dahiya, SB
(Ed); The Current State of Business Disciplines: Volume 5 – Management II;
Spellbound Publications; Rohtak, India.
Cosier, RA (1982). Methods for Improving the Strategic Decision: Dialectic Versus
the Devil’s Advocate; Strategic Management Journal 3/4; 373-374.
Cosier, RA, Ruble, TL & Aplin, JC (1978). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Dialectical Inquiry Systems; Management Science 24/14; 1483-1490.
Dick, B & Swepson, P (1994). Appropriate Validity and its Attainment within Action
Research: An Illustration Using Soft Systems Methodology; Available On-line at
Dyer, JS (1990). Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Management Science
Dyer, RF & Forman, EH (1992). Group Decision Support with the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; Decision Support Systems 8; 99-124.
Eden, C & Huxham, C (1996). Action Research for the Study of Organizations; in
Clegg, SR; Hardy, C & Nord, WR (Eds); Handbook of Organizational Studies;
SAGE Publications; London, UK.
Edmunds, D & Wollenberg, E (2001). A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder
Negotiations; Development and Change 32/2; 231-253.
Ettling, JT & Jago, AG (1988). Participation under Conditions of Conflict: More on
the Validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model; Journal of Management Studies 25/1; 1-22.
Feyerabend, PK (1978). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of
Knowledge; Verso; London, UK.
Finan, JS & Hurley, WJ (2002). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Can Wash Criteria
be Ignored?; Computers & Operations Research 29/8; 1025-1030.
Flood, RL & Jackson, MC (1991). Creative Problem-Solving: Total Systems
Intervention; John Wiley & Sons; Chichester, UK.
Forman, EH, & Gass, SI (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process – An Exposition;
Operations Research 49/4; 469-486.
Forman, EH & Selly MA (2001). Decision by Objectives: How to Convince Others
that You are Right; World Scientific Publications; Singapore.
Funder, DC (1990). Process versus Content in the Study of Judgmental Accuracy;
Psychological Inquiry 1/3; 207-209.
Funder, DC & West, SG (1993). Consensus, Self-Other Agreement and Accuracy of
Personality Judgments: An Introduction; Journal of Personality 61/4; 457-476.
Gergen, KJ (2002). Beyond the Empiricist/Constructionist Divide in Social
Psychology; Personality and Social Psychology Review 6/3; 188-191.
Gigone, D & Hastie, R (1997). Proper Analysis of the Accuracy of Group Judgments;
Psychological Bulletin 1; 149-167.
Greenwood, DJ & Levin, M (2005). Reform of the Social Sciences and Universities
Through Action Research; in Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (Eds); SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research; 3rd Edition; SAGE Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
Greenwood, DJ & Levin, M (2007). Introduction to Action Research: Social
Research for Social Change; 2nd Edition; SAGE Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
Guba, EG (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic
Inquiries; Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29/2; 75-92.
Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research; in
Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (Eds); Handbook of Qualitative Research; SAGE
Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
Habermas, J (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and
Rationalisation of Society; Volume 1; Polity Press; Cambridge, MA.
Hacker, ME (1997). The Effect of Decision Aids on Work Group Performance;
Unpublished PhD Thesis; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University;
Hammond, KR (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty,
Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice; Oxford University Press; New York, NY.
Harker, PT & Vargas, LG (1990). Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy
Process’ by JS Dyer; Management Science 36/3; 269-275.
Harper, RM, Apostolou, NG & Hartman, BP (1992). The Analytic Hierarchy
Process: An Empirical Examination of Aggregation and Hierarchical Structuring;
Behavioral Research in Accounting; 4/1; 96-112.
Hastie, R (2001). Problems for Judgment and Decision Making; Annual Review of
Psychology 52/1; 653-683.
Holder, RD (1990). Some Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Journal of
the Operational Research Society 41/11; 1073-1076.
Ishizaka, A & Labib, A (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice:
Benefits and Limitations; OR Insight 22/4; 201-220.
Kahneman, D & Tversky, A (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under
Risk; Econometrica 47/2; 263-291.
Kahneman, D & Tversky, A (Eds) (2000). Choice, Values and Frames; Cambridge
University Press; New York, NY.
Kerlinger, FN (1977). The Influence of Research on Education Practice; Educational
Researcher 6/8; 5-12.
Kerlinger, FN (1979). Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Approach; Holt, Rinehart
and Winston; New York. NY.
Kim, WC & Mauborgne, RA (1995). A Procedural Justice Model of Strategic
Decision Making: Strategy Content Implications in the Multinational; Organization
Science 6/1; 44-61.
Kim, WC & Mauborgne, RA (1997). Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge
Economy; Harvard Business Review 75/4; 65-75.
Kirchler, E & Davis, JH (1986). The Influence of Member Status Differences and
Task Type on Group Consensus and Member Position Change; Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 51/1; 83-91.
Kruglanski, AW & Ajzen, I (1983). Bias and Error in Human Judgment; European
Journal of Social Psychology 13/1; 1-44.
Laughlin, PR (1996). Group Decision Making and Collective Induction; in Witte, E
& Davis, JH (Eds); Group Behavior: Consensual Behavior by Small Groups; Volume
1; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ.
Leskinen, P (2000). Measurement Scales and Scale Independence in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9/4; 163-174.
Lind, EA & Tyler, TR (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice; Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
MacCoun, RJ (1998). Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results;
Annual Review of Psychology 49/1; 259-287.
Ma, D & Zheng, X (1991). 9/9-9/1 Scale Method of AHP; Proceedings 2nd
International Symposium on AHP; Pittsburgh, PA; August.
McEwan, T (2001). Managing Values and Beliefs in Organisations; Financial
Times/Prentiss Hall; Harlow, UK.
McTaggart, R (1998). Is Validity Really an Issue for Action Research?; Studies in
Cultures, Organizations and Societies 4/2; 211-236.
Millet, I (1997). The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Methods in
the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6/1; 41-
Mitroff, II (1982). Talking Past One’s Colleagues in Matters of Policy; Strategic
Management Journal 3/4; 374-376.
Mitroff, II (1994). The Cruel Science of World Mismanagement: An Essay in Honor
of C. West Churchman; Interfaces 24/4; 94-98.
Mittroff, II & Mason, RO (1981). The Metaphysics of Policy and Planning: A Reply
to Cosier; Academy of Management Review 6/4; 649-651.
Mouton, J & Marais, HC (1990). Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social
Sciences; Human Sciences Research Council; Pretoria, RSA.
Muckler, FA & Seven, SA (1992). Selecting Performance Measures: 'Objective'
versus 'Subjective' Measurement; Human Factors 34/4; 441-455.
Pavitt, C (1993). Does Communication Matter in Social Influence During Small
Group Discussion?: Five Positions; Communication Studies 44/3-4; 216-227.
Peniwati, K (1996). The Possibility Theorem for Group Decision Making: The
Analytic Hierarchy Process; Unpublished PhD Thesis; University of Pittsburgh;
Peniwati, K (1999). A Unifying Theory for Social Choice and Synergetic Group
Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Proceedings ISAHP 1999; Kobe,
Japan; August; 153-158.
Pérez, J (1995). Some Comments on Saaty’s AHP; Management Science 41/6; 1091-
Pérez, J, Jimeno, JL & Mokotoff, E (2006). Another Potential Strong Shortcoming of
AHP; TOP: Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research
Petkov, D, McEwan, T, von Solms, SH & Vezjak M (1998). Moving Towards
Compliance with Standards for Environmental Protection - An Example of Mixing
Approaches to 'Messy' Problems; Proceedings 14th European Meeting on Cybernetics
& Systems Research; Vienna, Austria; 252-257.
Petkov, D & Mihova-Petkova, O (1996). Problem Structuring in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process and Soft Systems Methodology; Proceedings 4th International
Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Vancouver, Canada; July.
Petkov, D & Mihova-Petkova, O (1997). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and
Systems Thinking; Proceedings 13th International MCDM Conference; Cape Town,
Petkov, D, Petkova, O, Andrew, T & Nepal, T (2007). Mixing Multiple Criteria
Decision Making with Soft Systems Thinking Techniques for Decision Support in
Complex Situations; Decision Support Systems 43/4; 1615-1629.
Rescher, N (1993). Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus; Clarendon Press;
Rorty, RM (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity; Cambridge University Press;
Rosenhead, J (1996). What’s the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring
Methods; Interfaces 26/6; 117-131.
Rubin, JZ (1984). Introduction; in Swap, WC & Associates (Eds); Group Decision
Making; SAGE Publications; Beverly Hills, CA.
Ryan-Nicholls, K & Will, C (2009). Rigor in Qualitative Research: Mechanisms for
Control; Nurse Researcher 16/3; 70-85.
Saaty, TL (1990). An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process’; Management Science 36/3; 259-268.
Saaty, TL (1997). That is Not the Analytic Hierarchy Process: What the AHP Is and
What It Is Not; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6/6; 320-339.
Saaty, TL (1998). Reflections and Projections on Creativity in Operations Research
and Management Science: A Pressing Need for a Shift in Paradigm; Operations
Research 46/1; 9-16.
Saaty, TL (1999). The Seven Pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Proceedings
5th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Kobe, Japan;
Saaty, TL (2001). Decision-Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic
Network Process; 2nd Edition; RWS Publications; Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, TL (2008). Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making:
Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central for the Measurement of Intangible Factors –
The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process; Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of
Sciences, Series A, Mathematics 102/2; 251-318.
Saaty, TL (2010). Principia Mathematica Decernendi: Mathematical Principles of
Decision-Making; RWS Publications; Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, TL & Kearns, KP (1985). Analytical Planning: The Organization of Systems;
Pergamon Press; Oxford, UK.
Saaty, TL & Peniwati, K (2008). Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and
Reconciling Differences; RWS Publications; Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, TL & Vargas, LG (2006). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Wash Criteria
Should Not be Ignored; International Journal of Management & Decision Making
Saaty, TL, Vargas, LG & Whitaker, R (2009). Addressing With Brevity Criticisms of
the Analytic Hierarchy Process; International Journal of the AHP 1/2; On-Line at
Salo, AA & Hämäläinen, RP (1997). On the Measurement of Preferences in the
Analytic Hierarchy Process; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6/6; 309-
Schram, A (2005). Artificiality: The Tension Between Internal and External Validity
in Economic Experiment; Journal of Economic Methodology 12/2; 225-237.
Schwandt, TA (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry; in
Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (Eds); Handbook of Qualitative Research; SAGE
Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sechrest, L (1992). Roots: Back to Our First Generations; Evaluation Practice 13/1;
Sechrest, L (2005). Validity of Measures Is No Simple Matter; Health Services
Research 40/5; 1584-1604.
Shrader-Frechette, KS (1990). Scientific Method, Anti-Foundationalism and Public
Decisionmaking; Risk: Issues in Health and Safety 1/4; 341-363.
Slovic, P (1999). Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk
Assessment Battlefield; Risk Analysis 19/4; 689-701.
Stasser, G & Titus, W (2003). Hidden Profiles: A Brief History; Psychological
Enquiry 14/3-4; 304-313.
Susman, GI & Evered, RD (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action
Research; Administrative Science Quarterly 23/4; 582-603.
Taket, AR & White, LA; (1994). Doing Community Operational Research with
Multicultural Groups; Omega 22/6; 579-588.
Taket, AR & White, LA; (1997). Wanted: Dead OR Alive – Ways of Using Problem
Structuring Methods in Community OR; International Transactions in Operational
Research 4/2; 99-108.
Tjosvold, D & Field, RHG; (1983). Effects of Social Context on Consensus and
Majority Vote Decision Making; Academy of Management Journal 26/3; 500-506.
Trochim, WMK (2006). Qualitative Validity; in Trochim, WMK; The Research
Methods Knowledge Base; A Web-based Textbook; This Chapter Available On-line
Tsoukas, H (1994). Refining Common Sense: Types of Knowledge in Management
Studies; Journal of Management Studies 31/6; 761-780.
Ulrich, W (2002). Critical Systems Heuristics; in Daellenbach, HG & Flood, RL
(Eds); The Informed Student Guide to Management Science; Thomsons Learning;
van den Honert, RC & Lootsma, FA (1996). Group Preference Aggregation in the
Multiplicative AHP: The Model of the Group Decision Process and Pareto
Optimality; European Journal of Operational Research 96/2; 363-370.
Vargas, LG (1997). Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma – Why the Multiplicative
AHP is Invalid: A Practical Counterexample; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis 6/3; 169-170.
von Solms, SH (1999). A Participative Approach to Environmental Impacts
Assessment; TAPPSA Journal; November; 34-36.
von Solms, SH (2003). Group Polarization, Social Influence and the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; Proceedings 7th International Symposium on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; Bali, Indonesia; August; 475-484.
von Solms, SH (2009). Homogeneity and Choice Aggregation in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; Proceedings 10th International Symposium on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; August.
von Solms, SH & Peniwati, K (2001). To Agree or Not to Agree, That is the
Question: Choice Aggregation in the AHP; Proceedings 6th International Symposium
on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Bern, Switzerland; August.
Watson, RT, DeSanctis, G & Poole, MS (1988). Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group
Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences; MIS Quarterly 12/3; 463-
Watson, SR & Freeling, ANS (1982). Assessing Attribute Weights; Omega 10/6; 582–
Whitaker, R (2004). Validation Examples for the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the
Analytic Network Process; Proceedings 17th International Conference on Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis; Whistler, BC, Canada; August.
Whitaker, R (2007). Criticisms of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Why They Often
Make No Sense; Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46/7-8; 948-961.
Wijnmalen, DJD (2001). Improved Structural Weight Adjustment in Top Down
Oriented Conventional AHP Hierarchies; Proceedings 6th International Symposium
on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Bern, Switzerland; August.
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.