Keywords
weighted sum
TOPSIS
Pareto order
How to Cite
##article.highlights##
- Evaluation models for the selection of applicants for the Master’s program in Forest Sciences were analyzed.
- The criteria were weighted using the point allocation method (PAM) and analytical hierarchical process (AHP).
- The values were added using the TOPSIS method and weighted sum method (WSM).
- The most compatible weighting-aggregation combination was determined using the Pareto order.
- The combination WSM-AHP generated a selection of applicants more compatible with the selection criteria.
Abstract
Introduction: The admission process of students to a postgraduate program is very important for the improvement of indicators of greater importance in the quality of the program. The problem is the large amount of information requested that is not always considered objectively for the selection of applicants with the desired profile.
Objective: Analyze evaluation models to select postgraduate applicants and, with a metric, choose the most compatible model.
Materials and methods: We used information from 19 applicants for the Master’s program in Forest Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. We applied subjective methods of multi-criteria analysis in the phase of consideration of the criteria (3) and sub-criteria (8): point allocation method and analytical hierarchical process. Values were aggregated using the TOPSIS method and the weighted sum method. The most compatible weighting-aggregation combination was determined with Pareto order.
Results and discussion: The combination of the weighted sum method and analytical hierarchical process showed a lower average distance to the order of the rest of the combinations and, consequently, generated a selection of applicants more compatible with the selection criteria.
Conclusion: Multi-criteria methods represent a good option to properly consider the amount of information generated in a selection process.
References
Adalid, C. M., & de Urdanivia, D. (2011). Conacyt y el posgrado: Políticas de evaluación y calidad. Gestión y Estrategia, 40, 87-98. Retrieved from http://zaloamati.azc.uam.mx/bitstream/handle/11191/2972/conacyt-y-el-posgrado-politicas-de-evaluacion-y-calidad.pdf?sequence=1
Álvarez-Montero, F., Mojardín-Heráldez, A., & Audelo-López, C. (2014). Criterios e instrumentos para la admisión en estudios de doctorado. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12(3), 853-886. doi: https;//doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.34.13138
Afshari, A., Mojahed, M., & Yuseff, R. M. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(5), 511-515. doi: https;//doi.org/10.7763/IJIMT.2010.V1.89
Aznar-Bellver, J., & Guijarro-Martínez, F. (2012). Nuevos métodos de valoración: Modelos multicriterio. España: Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. Retrieved from http://personales.upv.es/~fraguima/Modelos%20multicriterio.pdf
Bengoetxea-Castro, E., & Arteaga-Ortiz, J. (2009). La evaluación de postgrados internacionales en la Unión Europea. Ejemplos de buenas prácticas de programas europeos. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 6(2), 60-68. Retrieved from http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/2984/1/v6n2_bengoetxea_arteaga.pdf
Chakrabarty, N., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2012). Aggregation and weightage issues concerning composite index development: Experience with digital divide in Asian countries. Asian Pacific Journal of Library and Information Science, 2(2), 24-37. Retrieved from https://apjlis.msu.ac.th/index.php/APJLIS/article/viewFile/87/93
Colonia-Duque, S. M. (2010). Caracterización del perfil de los estudiantes de posgrado a partir de la información de admisión y el desempeño académico. Aplicación a la maestría en ingeniería administrativa de la Universidad Nacional Sede Medellín. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia. Retrieved from http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/3601/1/42144324.2010.pdf
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). (2013). Marco de referencia para la evaluación y seguimiento de programas de posgrado. Retrieved from http://dsia.uv.mx/sipo/Material_apoyo/Marco_Referencia_PNPC_2013-3.pdf
Davies, H. (2009). Survey of master degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_Survey_Of_Master_Degrees_In_Europe_FINAL_www.pdf?sfvrsn=2
European University Institute (EUI). (2014). Academic rules and regulations for the doctoral and master’s programmes. Retrieved from http://www.eui.eu/Documents/ServicesAdmin/DeanOfStudies/EUI-RulesRegs.pdf
Expert Choice Inc. (2014). Expert Choice Desktop 11.5.1860. Airlington, VA, USA: Author.
García, J. M. (1995). El desarrollo del posgrado en México: El caso de los sectores público y privado. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (México), 20(1), 107-130. Retrieved from http://www.cee.edu.mx/revista/r1981_1990/r_texto/t_1990_1_05.pdf
Ibañez, B. C. (2009). Evaluación diagnóstica y admisión de aspirantes a la educación superior: Algunas notas metodológicas. Tecnociencia Chihuahua, 3(1), 39-46. Retrieved from http://tecnociencia.uach.mx/numeros/v3n1/data/EvaluacionDiagnosticayAdmisiondeAspirantes.pdf
Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: A comparative analysis. Wenner Gren International Series, 67-78. Retrieved from http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/fyos/083/0067/0830067.pdf
Kuncel, N. R., Wee, S., Serafin, L., & Hazlett, S. A. (2010). The validity of Graduate Record Examination for master´s and doctoral programs: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 340-353. doi: https;//doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344508
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and Undergraduate Grade Point Average (UGPA) for graduate student academic performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 51-68. doi: https;//doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2007.24401702
McGrath, C. H., Henham, M. L., Corbett, A., Durazzi, N., Frearson, M., Janta, B., ...Schweppenstedde, D. (2014). Higher education entrance qualifications and exams in Europe. POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/529057/IPOL-CULT_ET(2014)529057_EN.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. publishing. France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/std/leading-indicators/42495745.pdf
Paracchini, M. L., Pacini, C., Calvo, S., & Vogt, J. (2007). Weighting and aggregation of indicators for sustainability impact assessment in the SENSOR context. In K. Helming, M. Pérez-Soba, & P. Tabbush (Eds.), Sustainability impact assessment of land changes (pp. 349-372). New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Pavić, Z., & Novoselac, V. (2013). Notes on TOPSIS method. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science, 1(2), 5-12. Retrieved from http://www.ijres.org/papers/v1-i2/B120512.pdf
Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative anlaysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134-146. doi: https;//doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. USA: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: https;//doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
San Cristóbal, J. R. (2012). Multi-criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. New York: Springer London Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Santelices, M. V., Ugarte, J. J., Flotts, M. P., Radovic, D., Catalán, X., & Kyllonen, P. (2010). Medición de atributos no cognitivos para el sistema de admisión a la educación superior en Chile. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 3(2), 49-75. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uam.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10486/661612/RIEE_3_2_3.pdf?sequence=1
Velásquez, M., & Hester, P. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operation Research, 10(2), 56-66. Retrieved from http://www.orstw.org.tw/ijor/vol10no2/ijor_vol10_no2_p56_p66.pdf
Wang, X. C., & Xiao, X. Y. (2011). On weights determination in ideal point multiattribute decision-making model. In S. W. Wei, S. Xu, Ch. Wuan, Y. Zhong, W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, & H. Linger (Eds.), Information Systems Development (pp. 475-481). New York: Springer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente