Cross Malmquist Productivity Index in Data Envelopment Analysis
4OR, ISSN: 1614-2411, Vol: 20, Issue: 4, Page: 567-602
2022
- 4Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) is an important instrument used to assess dynamic performance. In this paper, to deal with overestimation, to increase rationality, and to reduce dependence on self-assessment results, we equip MPI with the cross-evaluation strategy. The MPI values measured from self and peer points of view are not the same necessarily, even significantly different or strongly inconsistent, and none of them can be ignored. Therefore, to match the results for the two common up-down and bottom-up strategies in building MPI indices, and to retain the multiplicative structure at the aggregate level, we use the geometric mean to aggregate the self and peer MPIs. Because the MPI indices of all units are calculated with several common bundle weights, the resulting values are consistent and therefore comparable. We will show the usability of the proposed method using a real example of 20 branches of an Iranian bank in 2017–2018.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know