Evaluation of University Professors Using the Spherical Fuzzy AHP and Grey MARCOS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model: A Case Study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202518

Keywords:

Multi Criteria Decision Making, MCDM, Spherical Fuzzy, AHP, Fuzzy sets, Grey MARCOS, Evaluation, Analysis

Abstract

This study introduces a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model combining Spherical Fuzzy AHP and Grey MARCOS methods to evaluate university professors comprehensively. Addressing the limitations of traditional assessment methods, the model incorporates subjective and imprecise data while maintaining transparency and precision. Seven criteria, including teaching quality, accessibility to students, professional competence, preparation and organization, student feedback, contribution to the university, and ethical behavior, were used. Spherical Fuzzy AHP was employed to determine the weight coefficients of the criteria, leveraging fuzzy logic to capture uncertainties. Subsequently, Grey MARCOS ranked professors by evaluating their performance against ideal and anti-ideal solutions using interval grey numbers. The hybrid approach effectively mitigates bias and provides an accurate ranking of alternatives, even under conditions of incomplete or subjective data. The results validate the model's robustness and adaptability, highlighting its utility for both individual evaluations and broader institutional improvements. This methodology offers actionable insights for enhancing teaching quality, encouraging professional growth, and strengthening institutional competitiveness. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating advanced MCDM techniques to ensure comprehensive and equitable assessments in academia. This study provides a practical framework for universities aiming to elevate educational standards while addressing global challenges in higher education evaluation. By applying this hybrid model, institutions can foster a culture of continuous improvement and achieve more reliable and impactful outcomes in professor evaluations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mas Torelló, Ó. (2011). El profesor universitario: sus competencias y formación. Profesorado, Granada, 15(3), 195-211.

Montenegro, H., & Fuentealba, R. (2010). El formador de Futuros el formador de futuros profesionales: Una nueva forma de comprender la docencia en la educación superior universitaria. Calidad En La Educación, (32), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.31619/caledu.n32.159

Valentín-Martínez, B., & Mayor-Ruiz, C. (2023). The evaluation of University Professors: A look from the students. Educação e Pesquisa, 49. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634202349241907eng

Ruiz-Corbella, M., & Aguilar-Feijoo, R.-M. (2017). Competencias del Profesor Universitario: Elaboración y validación de un cuestionario de autoevaluación. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 8(21). https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2017.21.212

Basow, S. A., Phelan, J. E., & Capotosto, L. (2006). Gender Patterns in College Students’ Choices of Their Best and Worst Professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00259.x

Moreno Olivos, T. (2018). La Evaluación Docente en la Universidad: Visiones de los Alumnos. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia Y Cambio En Educación, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2018.16.3.005

Akter, S., Tarannum, T., Obhi, A. R., & Romjan, Md. R. (2024). Evaluation of University Ranking System to propose a model for Bangladeshi universities. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 7(09), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.36349/easjehl.2024.v07i09.001

Acosta-Soto, L., Okoye, K., Camacho-Zuniga, C., Escamilla, J., & Hosseini, S. (2022). An analysis of the students’ evaluation of professors’ competencies in the light of professors’ gender. 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie56618.2022.9962637

Cruse, D. B. (1987). Student Evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor. Higher Education, 16(6), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139696

Abdulkareem, H. G., & Erzaij, K. R. (2022). A spherical fuzzy AHP model for contractor assessment during Project Life Cycle. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 31(1), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0042

Imamoglu, G., Ayyildiz, E., Aydin, N., & Topcu, Y. I. (2024). Bloodmobile location selection for Resilient Blood Supply Chain: A novel spherical fuzzy AHP-integrated spherical fuzzy COPRAS methodology. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-07-2023-0379

Otay, I., Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B., & Onar, S. Ç. (2020). A novel single-valued spherical fuzzy AHP-WASPAS methodology. Developments of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Computation and Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811223334_0024

Elshaboury, N., Zayed, T., & Mohammed Abdelkader, E. (2024). A hybrid spherical fuzzy AHP-Marcos model for evaluating the condition of saltwater pipes in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-08-2023-0777

Bakır, M., & Atalık, Ö. (2021). Application of fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Marcos approach for the evaluation of E-service quality in the airline industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104127b

Mathew, M., Chakrabortty, R. K., & Ryan, M. J. (2020). A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for Advanced Manufacturing System Selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 96, 103988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103988

Otay, İ. (2023). Tech-center location selection by interval-valued spherical fuzzy AHP based MULTIMOORA methodology. Soft Computing, 27(15), 10941–10960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08082-3

Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C. A., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2021). An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Marcos methodology for Digital Transformation Strategy Analysis in airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 97, 102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102142

Başaran, S., & Ighagbon, O. A. (2024). Enhanced FMEA Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Learning Platforms Using Grey Relational Analysis and Fuzzy AHP. Applied Sciences, 14(19), 8844. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198844

Radovanović, M., Crnogorac, M., Jovčić, S., Cirkin, E., & Bouraima, M. B. (2024). Optimization of Anti-Drone Defense: Analyzing Non-Kinetic Gun Selection Using DIBR II-Grey MARCOS Methodology. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 3(3), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse030302

Yazar, E. A., Adar, T., & Kilic-Delice, E. (2024). Comprehensive evaluation of hazardous solid waste treatment and disposal technologies by a new integrated AHP&MARCOS approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 23(03), 1229-1259. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622023500372

Varghese, B., & Karande, P. (2022). AHP-Marcos, a hybrid model for selecting gears and cutting fluids. Materials Today: Proceedings, 52, 1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.142

Torkayesh, A. E., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Kahvand, M., & Khazaelpour, P. (2021). Landfill location selection for healthcare waste of urban areas using hybrid BWM-grey Marcos model based on GIS. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102712

Bitarafan, M., Amini Hosseini, K., & Zolfani, S. H. (2023). Identification and assessment of man-made threats to cities using integrated Grey BWM- Grey MARCOS method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 6(2), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame622023747

Badi, I., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003037b

Tešić, D., Božanić, D., Puška, A., Milić, A., & Marinković, D. (2023). Development of the MCDM FUZZY LMAW-grey Marcos model for selection of a dump truck. Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.31181/rme20008012023t

Abdulkareem, H. G., & Erzaij, K. R. (2022a). A spherical fuzzy AHP model for contractor assessment during Project Life Cycle. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 31(1), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0042

Radovanović, M., Ranđelović, A., & Jokić, Ž. (2020). Application of hybrid model fuzzy AHP - VIKOR in selection of the most efficient procedure for rectification of the optical sight of the long-range rifle. Decision Making Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003131r

Radovanović, M., Petrovski, A., Žnidaršič, V., & Ranđelović, A. (2021). Application of the Fuzzy AHP -VIKOR Hybrid Model in the Selection of an Unmanned Aircraft for the Needs of Tactical Units of the Armed Forces. Scientific Technical Review, 71(2), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.5937/str2102026R

Ortega, J., Moslem, S., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2023). An integrated approach of the AHP and spherical fuzzy sets for analyzing a park-and-ride facility location problem example by heterogeneous experts. IEEE Access, 11, 55316–55325. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3281865

Kieu, P. T., Nguyen, V. T., Nguyen, V. T., & Ho, T. P. (2021). A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and Combined Compromise Solution (cocoso) algorithm in Distribution Center location selection: A case study in Agricultural Supply Chain. Axioms, 10(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10020053

Moslem, S. (2024). A novel parsimonious spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for Sustainable Urban Transport Solutions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 128, 107447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107447

Fathima Perveen, P. A., John, S. J., & Babitha, K. V. (2020). Spherical Fuzzy Soft sets. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45461-6_6

Yildiz, D., Temur, G. T., Beskese, A., & Bozbura, F. T. (2020). A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based approach to prioritize career management activities improving employee retention. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(5), 6603-6618. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-189122

Nguyen, P.-H., Tsai, J.-F., Dang, T.-T., Lin, M.-H., Pham, H.-A., & Nguyen, K.-A. (2021). A hybrid spherical fuzzy MCDM approach to prioritize governmental intervention strategies against the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study from Vietnam. Mathematics, 9(20), 2626. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9202626

Aydoğdu, A., & Gül, S. (2020). A novel entropy proposition for spherical fuzzy sets and its application in multiple attribute decision‐making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(9), 1354–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22256

Yolcu, A. (2022). Bipolar spherical fuzzy soft topology with applications to multi-criteria group decision-making in buildings risk assessment. Symmetry, 14(11), 2362. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14112362

Mahmood, T., Ahmmad, J., Ali, Z., Pamucar, D., & Marinkovic, D. (2021). Interval valued T-spherical fuzzy soft average aggregation operators and their applications in multiple-criteria decision making. Symmetry, 13(5), 829. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13050829

Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2019). A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application. Soft Computing, 24(6), 4607–4621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04222-w

Kahraman, C., & Gündogdu, F. K. (2021). Decision making with spherical fuzzy sets. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, 392, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45461-6

Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2019a). A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application. Soft Computing, 24(6), 4607–4621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04222-w

Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2020). Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and its application to industrial robot selection. In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making: Proceedings of the INFUS 2019 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 23-25, 2019 (pp. 988-996). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23756-1_117

Konyalıoğlu, A. K., Bereketli, I., & Ozcan, T. (2024). A novel spherical fuzzy AHP method to managing waste from face masks and gloves: an Istanbul-based case study. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05871-7

Abdulkareem, H. G., & Erzaij, K. R. (2022a). A spherical fuzzy AHP model for contractor assessment during Project Life Cycle. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 31(1), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0042

Jana, S., Giri, B. C., Sarkar, A., Jana, C., Stević, Ž., & Radovanović, M. (2024). Application of fuzzy AHP in priority based selection of financial indices: A perspective for investors. ECONOMICS, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2024-0007

Karayalcin, I. I. (1982). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. European Journal of Operational Research, 9(1), 97–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(82)90022-4

Hillier, F. S., & Price, C. C. (2001). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1665-1

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in Healthcare Industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Stanković, M., Stević, Ž., Das, D. K., Subotić, M., & Pamučar, D. (2020). A new fuzzy marcos method for Road Traffic Risk Analysis. Mathematics, 8(3), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8030457

Radovanović, M., Petrovski, A., Cirkin, E., Behlić, A., Jokić, Ž., Chemezov, D., Hashimov, E. G., Bouraima, M. B., & Jana, C. (2024a). Application of the new hybrid model LMAW-G-EDAS multi-criteria decision-making when choosing an assault rifle for the needs of the Army. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 4(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10021012024r

Faisal, M. N. (2013). Grey theory-based MCDM model for auditing firm selection problem in Qatar. In Qatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2013 Issue 1 (Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. SSHP-031). Hamad bin Khalifa University Press (HBKU Press). https://doi.org/10.5339/qfarf.2013.sshp-031

Li, Y., Zhu, S., & Guo, S. (2016). Multi-attribute grey target decision method with three-parameter interval grey number. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 6(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/gs-05-2016-0010

Ju-Long, D. (1982). Control Problems of Grey Systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6911(82)80025-x

Badi, I., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined grey-marcos methods. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003037b

Puška, A., Stojanović, I., Maksimović, A., & Osmanović, N. (2020). Project management software evaluation by using the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (Marcos) method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta2001089p

Bueno, D. C. (2024). Analysis of Performance Evaluation and Feedback for EdDFoundation Courses Professors, second trimester, AY2023-2024. Institutional Multidisciplinary Research and Development Journal- IMRaD Journal, 7(3), 224–235.

Purdescu, C. A. (2023). The quantification of the time saved by the professors through the introduction of the Electronic Evaluation. Towards Increased Business Resilience:Facing Digital Opportunities and Challenges, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.56177/11icmie2023.33

Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. Handbook of teacher evaluation, 244-271.

Cruse, D. B. (1987). Student Evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor. Higher Education, 16(6), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139696

Moore, S., & Kuol, N. (2005). Students evaluating teachers: exploring the importance of faculty reaction to feedback on teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251052000305534

Ware Jr, J. E., & Williams, R. G. (1977). Discriminant analysis of student ratings as a means for identifying lecturers who differ in enthusiasm or information-giving. Educational and psychological measurement, 37(3), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700306

Braga, M., Paccagnella, M., & Pellizzari, M. (2014). Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors. Economics of Education Review, 41, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.04.002.

Published

2025-01-23

How to Cite

Radovanović, M., Jovčić, S., Petrovski, A., & Cirkin, E. (2025). Evaluation of University Professors Using the Spherical Fuzzy AHP and Grey MARCOS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model: A Case Study. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 198-218. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202518