ArticleSoft computing2022
Distance education tool selection using novel spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS.
Article in Soft computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Internal control risk assessment using interval valued spherical fuzzy CRITIC EDAS.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation and improvement of nursing undergraduates' informatics competencies using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- An application of the hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE approach to evaluate the severity of the factors influencing road accidents.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Multiple criteria decision analytic methods in management with T-spherical fuzzy information.Artificial intelligence review · 2023Article
- A multi-objective optimization approach for integrated risk-based internal audit planning.Annals of operations research · 2023Article
- An extended picture fuzzy multicriteria group decision analysis with different weights: A case study of COVID-19 vaccine allocation.Socio-economic planning sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2024-10-10Author Unresponsive · Concerns/Issues about Article · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Rogue Editor ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID 19 pandemic, which entered our lives suddenly, caused the change of our classical education system and forced higher education institutions to switch to distance education quickly. During this time, the need for a method that can comprehensively and scientifically evaluate the alternatives of videoconferencing tools to be used in distance education has emerged. This paper proposes a novel hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) model by integrating the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) methodologies. The proposed model is developed with spherical fuzzy (SF) sets, which enable decision-makers (DMs) express their membership, non-membership and hesitancy degrees independently, and in a large three-dimensional spherical space. The applicability of the developed spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS is illustrated through a problem of selecting a videoconferencing tool for distance education. For this purpose, three DMs evaluate five popular videoconferencing tools, namely Zoom, Google Meet, Cisco WebEx, Skype and Microsoft with respect to six criteria, which are expanded with 32 related sub-criteria from the literature to more comprehensively handle the problem. The implications, sensitivity and comparative analyses, limitations and future research avenue are also given within the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.