Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 12, Issue 11 (November 2016), pp. 2771-2781

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.02303a

Downloaded 675 times.

Research Article

Published online on Aug 15, 2016

How to reference this article?


Is the evaluation of the students’ values possible? An integrated approach to determining the weights of students’ personal goals using multiple-criteria methods

Stanislav Dadelo, Zenonas Turskis, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Tomas Kačerauskas & Rūta Dadelienė


To maximize the effectiveness of a decision, it is necessary to support decision–making with integrated methods. It can be assumed that subjective evaluation (considering only absolute values) is only remotely connected with the evaluation of real processes. Therefore, relying solely on these values in process management decision–making would be a mistake because this might lead to the lack of agreement between the criteria of the process. The absolute values of criteria are required for decision making, while the integrated criteria evaluation is necessary for making consistent decisions, taking into account the relative values of the criteria as well.

Keywords: ranking, entropy, integrated method, aggregate weights

  1. Baltrėnas, P., Baltrėnaitė, E., & Kačerauskas, T. (2015). Social environment of creativity. Filosofija. Sociologija, 26(1), 46–54.
  2. Centre for Studies in Higher Education. (2007). General education in the 21st century: A report of the university of California commission on general education in the 21st century. Berkeley, CA: Centre for Studies in Higher Education of University of California. Retrieved from
  3. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 27, 379–423 and 623–656. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  4. Chen, S., Leng, Y., Mao, B., & Liu, S. (2014). Integrated weight-based multi-criteria evaluation on transfer in large transport terminals: A case study of the Beijing South Railway Station. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66, 13–26.
  5. Chua, C. (2012). Personal Excellence Book 2. Personal Excellence. Retrieved from
  6. Dadelo, S. (2015). Students' personal life goals assessed using settings weighting method. Managing Intellectual Capital and Innovation for Sustainable and Inclusive Society, Proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM Joint International Conference, 27–29 May 2015, At Bari, Italy. Retrieved from
  7. Dadelo S., Veršinskas R., Piwowarski J., Dadelienė R. (2015). The most commonly used arrest and self-defence actions arsenal by different officers of internal services. Archives of Budo, 11 (1), 285–291. Retrieved from
  8. Dadelo, S., Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Dadeliene, R. (2013). Integrated multi-criteria decision making model based on wisdom-of-crowds principle for selection of the group of elite security guards. Archives of Budo, 9 (2), 135–147. Retrieved from
  9. Dadelo, S., Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Dadeliene, R. (2014). Multi-criteria assessment and ranking system of sport team formation based on objective-measured values of criteria set. Expert Systems with Applications, 14 (41), 6106–6113. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.036
  10. Dėjus, T., Antuchevičienė, J. (2013). Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19 (5), 728–737. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2013.812578
  11. Emil, S., & Cress, C. (2014). Faculty perspectives on programme curricular assessment: individual and institutional characteristics that influence participation engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (5), 531–552. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.855998
  12. Ghorbani, M., Bahrami, M., & Arabzad, S. M. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection and order allocation; using Shannon entropy, SWOT and linear programming. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 521–527. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.064
  13. Ginevičius, R. (2011). A new determining method for the criteria weights in multicriteria evaluation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10 (6), 1067–1095. doi: 10.1142/S0219622011004713
  14. Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: what thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (5), 563–576. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.859230
  15. Hwang, C. L. & Yoou, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making-methods and applications (pp. 58-191). New York: Springer.
  16. Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications (pp. 145-346). Berlin: Springer–Verlag.
  17. Jenkins, J. O. (2010). A multi‐faceted formative assessment approach: better recognising the learning needs of students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5), 565–576. doi: 10.1080/02602930903243059
  18. Jeynes, E. T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 104 (4), 620–630. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.106.620
  19. Jones, C. N., You, S., & Furlong, M. J. (2013). A preliminary examination of covitality as integrated well-being in college students. Social Indicators Research, 111 (2), 511–526. doi 10.1007/s11205-012-0017-9
  20. Juzefovič, A. (2015). Creativity and aesthetic applied to ecological education. Creativity Studies, 8 (1), 12–24. doi: 10.3846/23450479.2014.1000410
  21. Kendall, M. G. (1970). Rank Correlation Methods 4th ed. (pp. 145-203). London: Charless Griffin.
  22. Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K. & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management, 11 (2), 243–258. doi: 10.3846/jbem.2010.12
  23. Krylovas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Kosareva, N. & Dadelo, S. (2014). New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 13 (06), 1119–1133. doi: 10.1142/S0219622014500825
  24. Li, L., Liu, F., & Li, C. (2014). Customer satisfaction evaluation method for customized product development using Entropy weight and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 77, 80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2014.09.009
  25. Michou, A., Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Personal and contextual antecedents of achievement goals: Their direct and indirect relations to students' learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.005
  26. Mirkin, B. G. (1974). The problem of group choice (pp. 23-76). Moscow: Science. (In Russian)
  27. Paelnik, J. H. P. (1978). Qualiflex: A flexible multiple-criteria method. Economics Letters 1 (3), 193–197. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(78)90023-X
  28. Park, S. (2014). Cultural relativism and the theory of relativity, Filosofija, Sociologija, 25 (1), 44–51.
  29. Pekelman, D., & Sen, S. K. (1974). Mathematical programming models for the determination of attribute weights, Management Science, 20 (8), 1217–1229. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.20.8.1217
  30. Pitts, P., Klosterman, S., & McGonagle, S. (2013). A successful approach to educating engineering leaders at the graduate level. Procedia: Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA13) Conf. Montreal. QC; June 17–20, 7–8.
  31. Pruskus, V. (2015). Individo laikysennos valstybės puoselėjamų vertybių ir tikslų atžvilgiu etiniai aspektai [The ethical aspects of the attitudes of the individual towards the values and goals scherished by the state]. Filosofija. Sociologija, 26 (1), 28–36. (in Lithuanian)
  32. Reisz, Z., Boudreaux, M. J., & Ozer, D. J. (2013). Personality traits and the prediction of personal goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (6), 699–704. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.023
  33. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation (pp. 223-267). Pittsburgh: McGraw-Hill.
  34. Singh, R. K., & Benyoucef, L. (2013). A consensus based group decision making methodology for strategic selection problems of supply chain coordination. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26 (1), 122–134. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2012.03.013
  35. Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z., & Streimikiene, D. (2013). Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: The multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia, 32, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.05.003
  36. Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973). Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments. Psychometrika, 38 (4), 473–493. doi: 10.1007/BF02291490
  37. Su, H., Qin, P., & Qin, Z. (2013). A method for evaluating sea dike safety. Water Resources Management, 27 (14), 122–134. doi: 10.1007/s11269-013-0459-0
  38. Task Force on Higher Education and Society. (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise (pp. 37-45). New York: World Bank. Retrieved from
  39. Wang, T. C., & Lee, H. D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (5), 8980–8985. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
  40. Wende, M. C. van der. (2011). The emergence of liberal arts and science education in Europe: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 24 (2), 233–253. doi: 10.1057/hep.2011.3
  41. Ye, J. (2010). Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using Entropy weights-based correlation coefficients of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34 (12), 3864–3870. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2010.03.025
  42. Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Šaparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2013). Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: Peculiarities of ranking methodology. Procedia Engineering, 57, 107–112. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.016
  43. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Ustinovichius, L., & Shevchenko, G. (2010). Attributes weights determining peculiarities in multiple attribute decision making methods. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 1, 32–43.