In this paper, paired comparison models with a stochastic background are investigated and compared from the perspective of the option numbers allowed. As two-option and three-option models are the ones most frequently used, we mainly focus on the relationships between two-option and four-option models and three-option and five-option models, and then we turn to the general s- and (s+2)-option models. We compare them from both theoretical and practical perspectives; the latter are based on computer simulations. We examine, when it is possible, mandatory, or advisable how to convert four-, five-, and (s+2)-option models into two-, three-, and s-option models, respectively. The problem also exists in reverse: when is it advisable to use four-, five-, and (s+2)-option models instead of two-, three-, and s-option models? As a result of these investigations, we set up an algorithm to perform the decision process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gyarmati et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: