如何同時綜合不同準則且有效地評估方案及排序呢?本研究主要是從Hwang 和Yoon (1981)在多準則決策 (Multiple Criteria Decision Making,MCDM)的“理想狀態―反面理想狀態＂(Ideal and Anti-ideal)概念出發，以及根據Deng, Yeh 和Willis (2000)文中所提出的調整理想解類似度偏好順序評估方法(Modified Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Method)加以延伸，並利用各方案在不同準則下之評分為資料，以準則相對重要性與理想解偏好順序之距離兩種成份構造出加權距離函數，作為多準則決策之評估依據。其中距離的定義除了歐幾里德距離外還加了Sinha (2003)建議的城市街道距離之考量，對於客觀加權距離的選擇，本研究探討等權重距離法(Equal Weight Distance Method)、熵值權重距離法(Entropy-Based Distance Method)、變異係數權重距離法(C.V.-Based Distance Method)及平均綜合指標法等四種不同方法的適用性。並將之應用在某大學入學成績各科系平均分數表現的順序評估上；除了計算各系學生入學成績至理想狀態、反面理想狀態的加權距離，並透過其所形成的綜合指標將各系加以排序，以衡量各系學生的學業成就，以提供學校一個簡單、客觀的學業成就評估的總指標。

Simultaneous consideration of multiple attributes and reaching an “optimal”solution is not an easy task. How to evaluate students’ academic achievement is also
an important issue. The scope and purpose of this research is to propose a method to determine reliable objective weights for the achievement evaluation and ranking of
students according to the entrance exam scores which are supposed to evaluate different capabilities in various subjects. The approach used in the research basically
adopted the “ideal and anti-ideal solution” concept from Hwang and Yoon (1981) in MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision Making) and extended the method so called TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Method). The objective weights choices associated in this research are mean, entropy-based and c.v.-based (coefficient-variation). In addition to Euclidian weighted distance,city block weighted distance as suggested by Sinha (2003) will be introduced into the indices calculation model. A case study about the entrance exams scores of the University will be conducted using the above-mentioned method.

目 錄
第一章 緒論 ……………………………………………………………1
   1.1 研究背景與動機 ………………………………………………1
   1.2 研究目的 ………………………………………………………3
   1.3 研究限制與對象 ………………………………………………4
   1.4 研究架構與流程 ………………………………………………4
   1.5 名詞釋義 ………………………………………………………7
第二章 文獻回顧與探討 ………………………………………………9
   2.1 招生策略與學生學業成就評估 ………………………………9
   2.2 多準則決策方法之相關應用與文獻探討……………………10
   2.2.1 決策問題……………………………………………………10
   2.2.2 績效評估法的綜合整理與比較……………………………12
   2.2.3 多準則決策方法的分類 ………………………………… 15
   2.2.4 各準則權重選取方法………………………………………17
第三章 研究方法與理論基礎…………………………………………22
   3.1 理想解類度偏好順序評估延伸法……………………………22
   3.2 各準則之客觀權重……………………………………………23
   3.2.1 熵值權重……………………………………………………23
   3.2.2 變異數權重…………………………………………………25
   3.3 距離與加權距離的定義 …………………………………… 25
   3.3.1 城市街道加權距離 ……………………………………… 26
   3.3.2 歐幾里德加權距離 ……………………………………… 26
   3.4 各個加權距離函數下綜合指標與總指標 ………………… 27
   3.4.1 等權重加權距離法 ……………………………………… 28
   3.4.2 熵值權重加權距離法………………………………………28
   3.4.3 變異係數加權距離法………………………………………28
   3.4.4 平均綜合指標法……………………………………………29
   3.5 Spearman 等級相關係數 ……………………………………29
   3.5.1 Spearman 等級相關係數的定義 …………………………29
   3.5.2 Spearman 等級相關檢定 …………………………………30
第四章 研究實証分析與結果…………………………………………31
   4.1 研究對象與背景介紹…………………………………………31
   4.2 樣本資料結構與相關分析……………………………………31
   4.3 算術平均數法 ……………………………………………… 32
   4.4 理想解類似度偏好順序評估延伸法…………………………34
   4.5 準則之間相關性考量:主成份標準差調整法 ………………38
   4.6 Spearman 等級相關分析 ……………………………………42
第五章 結論與建議 ………………………………………………… 45
參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………47
【附錄1】：80~93 學年歷年校數、學生數 ……………………… 51
【附錄2】：多元入學方案 ………………………………………… 52

參考文獻
一、中文部份：
【1】丁吉峰(2003)，貨櫃碼頭營運作業績效評估之研究ー多準則評
估之應用，國立海洋大學航海管理學系碩士班論文。
【2】王小璠(2005)，多準則決策分析，滄海書局。
【3】李宏隆 (2000)，「大學申請入學之模糊多準則決策模式」，長榮管理學院經營管理研究所碩士班論文。
【4】徐正宇 (2000)，「AHP 模式應用於招生策略瓦學生特質分析之研究」，中原大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
【5】莊豐光 (2003)，「台灣生物科技類型公司績效指標擷取與排名預測之研究－灰色系統理論之應用」，國防管理學院國防財務資
源研究所碩士論文。
【6】孫遜 (2004)，資料包絡分析法–理論與應用，揚智文化。
【7】陳冠傑 (2003)，「應用近似最佳解績效排序法於多目標設計決策之研究」，國立成功大學工業設計學系碩士論文。
二、英文部份：
【8】Agrell, P. and West, B. M. (2001). A caveat on the measurement of productive efficiency. International Journal of Production Economics, 69, 1-14.
【9】Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B.E. (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42, 1515-1523.
【10】Chang, C.H. and Lin, J.J. (2005). Determining the objective weights in MADP-adjusted principal component method. Working Paper.
【11】Chang, Y. H. and Yeh, C. H. (2001). Evaluation airline competitiveness using multi-attribute decision making. Omega, 29, 405-415.
【12】Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 429-444.
【13】Clark, R.(1992). Evaluating USAF vehicle maintenance productivity over time: an application of data envelopment analysis. Desicison Sciences, 23, 376-384.
【14】Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. and Willis, R.J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computes and Operations Research, 27, 963-973.
【15】Deng J. L. (1989). “Grey system and agriculture”. Agricultural Science in Shanxi, 29-37.
【16】Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. and Papayanakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method. Computes and Operations Research, 22, 763-770.
【17】Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J. and Wager, W.W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. 4th edition. New York: Harcourt Brace.
【18】Griliches, Z. and Regev, H. (1995). Firm productivity in Israeli industry. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 175-203.
【19】Hobbs, B.F. (1978). A comparison of weighting methods in power plant citing. Decision Sciences , 11, 725-737.
【20】Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K.S. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: method and application. A State-of–the-Art Survey. New York: Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
【21】Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001). The Strategy-focused
Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. 1st edition. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
【22】Kumbhakar, S. C., Hesmati, A., and Hjalmarsson, L. (1997).Temporal Patterns of technical efficiency: Results from competitive models. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15, 597-616.
【23】 Saaty, T.L. (1995). Decision making for leaders. 3rd edition. New York: RWS Publications.
【24】Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Waid, C.D. (1982). An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Science , 28, 182-196.
【25】Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinios Press.
【26】Sinha, B.K. (2003). Combining Environmental Indicators, working paper. Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Maryland Baltimore County.
【27】Studit, E. F. (1995). Productivity measurement in industrial operations. European Journal of Operational Research, 85, 435-453.
【28】Thanassoulis, E., Boussofiane, A. and Dyson, R.G. (1996). A comparison of Data Envelopment Analysis and Ratio Analysis as Tools for Performance Assement. OMEGA, 24 (3), 229-244.
【29】Yoon, K., and Hwang, C.L., (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Sage University, California, USA.
【30】Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.