Comparison of comprehensive evaluation poor eyesight effects of RSR, improved TOPSIS and fuzzy combination method
-
摘要:
目的 应用秩和比(rank-sum ratio, RSR)法、改良TOPSIS(technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution)法及两者模糊联合法对部分少数民族学生视力不良进行综合评价，并比较三种方法的综合评价效果。 方法 基于2014年中国学生体质与健康调研报告数据，采用RSR法、改良TOPSIS法以及两者模糊联合法对部分少数民族学生视力不良进行综合评价。 结果 三种分析方法下，壮族、羌族和撒拉族视力不良水平均为后5位，其结果较为稳定。RSR法下土族为第23名，分档结果为第一档(差)，改良TOPSIS法及三种权重下模糊联合的结果分别为第16，23，21和19名。在改良TOPSIS下朝鲜族为最后一名，RSR及三种权重下分别为第17、19、22和24名。 结论 RSR法对数据的利用不够充分，TOPSIS法易受极端值的影响，模糊联合法将两种方法优势互补。根据择多原则，选择总体趋势相同的结果。而且，模糊联合法灵敏度更高，因而更适合去评价视力不良的分布情况。 Abstract:Objective A comprehensive evaluation of the poor eyesight of some minority students was carried out based on rank-sum ratio (RSR), improved technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) and fuzzy combination method, and the comprehensive evaluation effects of three methods were compared. Methods RSR, improved TOPSIS and fuzzy combination method were used to comprehensively evaluate the poor eyesight of some minority students based on the data of physique and health survey reports of Chinese students in 2014. Results The last five of poor vision levels were Bourau, Qiang and Salar under three analytical methods, and the results were relatively stable. Under RSR method, Tu nationality was the 23th, the result of grading was the first (poor), and the results were respectively the 16th, 23rd, 21st and 19th under improved TOPSIS and fuzzy combination method of three kinds of weight. Under improved TOPSIS method, Korean was the last, that RSR method and three kinds of weight were the 17th, 19th, 22nd and 24th, respectively. Conclusions RSR method does not fully utilize the data, and improved TOPSIS method is susceptible to extreme values, fuzzy combination method can complement the advantages of the two methods. According to the principle of majority, the results were selected with the same overall trend. Furthermore, fuzzy combination method possesses higher sensitivity and thereby is more suitable to evaluate the distribution of poor eyesight. -
Key words:
- RSR /
- Improved TOPSIS /
- Fuzzy combination /
- Comprehensive evaluation
-
表 1 少数民族学生视力不良各指标编秩后的RSR排序
Table 1. RSR ranking of different indicators for minority students with poor eyesight
民族 近视 远视 其它 RSR值 排序 X1 R1 X2 R2 X3 R3 哈尼族 22.61 19.0 0.08 22.5 0.04 24.5 0.846 2 1 傈僳族 23.24 17.0 0.08 22.5 0.15 18.5 0.743 6 2 佤族 17.54 20.0 0.34 15.5 0.08 22.0 0.737 2 3 傣族 26.20 16.0 0.00 25.0 0.38 15.5 0.724 4 4 土家族 45.14 9.0 0.00 25.0 0.08 22.0 0.717 9 5 彝族 23.12 18.0 0.21 20.0 0.45 13.0 0.653 8 6 藏族 62.90 1.0 0.00 25.0 0.04 24.5 0.647 4 7 水族 13.55 25.0 0.50 13.0 0.63 11.0 0.628 2 8 蒙古族 45.85 8.0 0.31 17.5 0.08 22.0 0.609 0 9 黎族 16.94 21.0 0.30 19.0 1.98 6.0 0.589 7 10 侗族 37.86 12.0 0.38 14.0 0.13 20.0 0.589 7 11 柯尔克孜族 15.91 23.0 1.59 8.0 0.53 12.0 0.551 3 12 白族 47.34 6.0 0.30 17.5 0.15 18.5 0.538 5 13 东乡族 14.35 24.0 10.99 3.0 0.44 14.0 0.525 6 14 苗族 36.42 13.0 1.25 9.0 0.33 17.0 0.500 0 15 瑶族 47.05 7.0 0.18 21.0 0.93 9.0 0.474 4 16 哈萨克族 16.90 22.0 0.63 11.0 8.07 1.0 0.435 9 17 朝鲜族 55.70 2.0 2.22 6.0 0.00 26.0 0.435 9 18 纳西族 49.85 4.0 1.10 10.0 0.38 15.5 0.378 2 19 维吾尔族 1.71 26.0 17.38 1.0 5.28 2.0 0.371 8 20 布依族 30.40 15.0 1.84 7.0 2.59 5.0 0.346 2 21 回族 54.95 3.0 0.34 15.5 0.96 8.0 0.339 7 22 土族 38.05 11.0 0.53 12.0 3.09 3.0 0.333 3 23 撒拉族 34.85 14.0 3.33 5.0 2.61 4.0 0.294 9 24 羌族 41.20 10.0 7.78 4.0 1.30 7.0 0.269 2 25 壮族 47.57 5.0 14.13 2.0 0.68 10.0 0.217 9 26 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 少数民族视力不良RSR值分布
Table 2. RSR distribution of poor vision in minorities
民族 R值 RSR值 f值 Σf值 R值 Px(%) Probit值 壮族 1 0.217 9 1 1 1.0 3.85 3.23 羌族 2 0.269 2 1 2 2.0 7.69 3.57 撒拉族 3 0.294 9 1 3 3.0 11.54 3.80 土族 4 0.333 3 1 4 4.0 15.38 3.98 回族 5 0.339 7 1 5 5.0 19.23 4.13 布依族 6 0.346 2 1 6 6.0 23.08 4.27 维吾尔族 7 0.371 8 1 7 7.0 26.97 4.39 纳西族 8 0.378 2 1 8 8.0 30.77 4.50 朝鲜族 9 0.435 9 1 9 9.5 36.54 4.66 哈萨克族 9 0.435 9 1 10 9.5 36.54 4.66 瑶族 11 0.474 4 1 11 11.0 42.31 4.81 苗族 12 0.500 0 1 12 12.0 46.15 4.90 东乡族 13 0.525 6 1 13 13.0 50.00 5.00 白族 14 0.538 5 1 14 14.0 53.85 5.10 柯尔克孜族 15 0.551 3 1 15 15.0 57.69 5.19 黎族 16 0.589 7 1 16 16.5 63.46 5.34 侗族 16 0.589 7 1 17 16.5 63.46 5.34 蒙古族 18 0.609 0 1 18 18.0 69.23 5.50 水族 19 0.628 2 1 19 19.0 73.07 5.61 藏族 20 0.647 4 1 20 20.0 76.92 5.73 彝族 21 0.653 8 1 21 21.0 80.77 5.87 土家族 22 0.717 9 1 22 22.0 84.62 6.02 傣族 23 0.724 4 1 23 23.0 88.46 6.20 佤族 24 0.737 2 1 24 24.0 92.31 6.43 傈僳族 25 0.743 6 1 25 25.0 96.15 6.77 哈尼族 26 0.846 2 1 26 26.0 99.04a 7.34 注：a：按$\left( {1 - \frac{1}{{4{\rm{n}}}}} \right)$ 100%估计。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 少数民族视力不良检出率的分档排序
Table 3. Grading of detection rate of poor eyesight in minorities
等级 RSR值 Probit 分档排序 Ⅲ(差) < 0.337 < 4 壮族(0.217 9)、羌族(0.269 2)、撒拉族(0.294 9)、土族(0.333 3) Ⅱ(良) 0.337~ 4~ 回族(0.339 7)、布依族(0.346 2)、维吾尔族(0.371 8)、纳西族(0.378 2)、朝鲜族(0.435 9)、哈萨克族(0.435 9)、瑶族(0.474 4)、苗族(0.500 0)、东乡族(0.525 6)、白族(0.538 5)、柯尔克孜族(0.551 3)、黎族(0.589 7)、侗族(0.589 7)、蒙古族、(0.609 0)、水族(0.628 2)、藏族(0.647 4)、彝族(0.653 8) Ⅰ(优) ≥0.669 ≥6 土家族(0.717 9)、傣族(0.724 4)、佤族(0.737 2)、傈僳族(0.743 6)、哈尼族(0.846 2)
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 少数民族视力不良改良TOPSIS综合评价结果及排序
Table 4. Comprehensive evaluation results and ranking of TOPSIS for ethnic poor vision improved
民族 Di+ Di- Ci 排序 哈尼族 1.415 1 0.950 2 1.616 7 1 傈僳族 1.036 0 1.201 9 1.163 8 2 维吾尔族 1.000 0 1.405 6 1.052 0 3 藏族 1.000 0 1.414 2 1.049 3 4 佤族 0.557 3 1.302 1 0.703 9 5 蒙古族 0.562 8 1.334 1 0.689 3 6 土家族 0.500 1 1.492 7 0.554 4 7 瑶族 0.446 6 1.485 2 0.510 3 8 彝族 0.394 1 1.455 8 0.481 3 9 白族 0.377 2 1.434 3 0.480 6 10 侗族 0.373 3 1.437 3 0.475 6 11 黎族 0.278 0 1.533 6 0.341 5 12 回族 0.239 0 1.579 6 0.283 5 13 水族 0.200 0 1.545 8 0.273 3 14 哈萨克族 0.148 1 1.614 3 0.189 2 15 土族 0.152 6 1.630 6 0.183 2 16 苗族 0.138 6 1.615 0 0.181 4 17 柯尔克孜族 0.122 6 1.612 0 0.171 6 18 东乡族 0.131 4 1.622 3 0.171 2 19 纳西族 0.128 2 1.626 6 0.166 0 20 傣族 0.112 3 1.650 4 0.138 9 21 布依族 0.055 0 1.680 9 0.075 1 22 壮族 0.059 8 1.690 1 0.073 0 23 撒拉族 0.036 3 1.696 4 0.050 9 24 羌族 0.035 6 1.699 9 0.048 0 25 朝鲜族 0.036 2 1.709 4 0.042 7 26
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 少数民族视力不良RSR值分布
Table 5. RSR distribution of poor vision in minority nationality
民族 改良TOPSIS法 RSR法 改良TOPSIS法与RSR法联合 Ci 排序 RSR 排序 0.1 Ci+0.9 RSR 排序 0.5 Ci+0.5 RSR 排序 0.9 Ci+0.1 RSR 排序 朝鲜族 0.042 7 26 0.435 9 17 0.396 6 19 0.239 3 22 0.082 0 24 羌族 0.048 0 25 0.269 2 25 0.247 1 25 0.158 6 25 0.070 1 26 撒拉族 0.050 9 24 0.294 9 24 0.270 5 24 0.172 9 24 0.075 3 25 壮族 0.073 0 23 0.217 9 26 0.203 4 26 0.145 5 26 0.087 5 23 布依族 0.075 1 22 0.346 2 21 0.319 1 22 0.210 7 23 0.102 2 22 傣族 0.138 9 21 0.724 4 4 0.665 9 6 0.431 7 14 0.197 5 20 纳西族 0.166 0 20 0.378 2 19 0.357 0 20 0.272 1 20 0.187 2 21 东乡族 0.171 2 19 0.525 6 14 0.490 2 14 0.348 4 16 0.206 6 18 柯尔克孜族 0.171 6 18 0.551 3 12 0.513 3 13 0.361 5 15 0.209 6 17 苗族 0.181 4 17 0.500 0 15 0.468 1 16 0.340 7 17 0.213 3 16 土族 0.183 2 16 0.333 3 23 0.318 3 23 0.258 3 21 0.198 2 19 哈萨克族 0.189 2 15 0.435 9 17 0.411 2 18 0.312 6 18 0.213 9 15 水族 0.273 3 14 0.628 2 8 0.592 7 9 0.450 8 13 0.308 8 13 回族 0.283 5 13 0.339 7 22 0.334 1 21 0.311 6 19 0.289 1 14 黎族 0.341 5 12 0.589 7 10 0.564 9 11 0.465 6 12 0.366 3 12 侗族 0.475 6 11 0.589 7 11 0.578 3 10 0.532 7 9 0.487 0 10 白族 0.480 6 10 0.538 5 13 0.532 7 12 0.509 6 10 0.486 4 11 彝族 0.481 3 9 0.653 8 6 0.636 6 7 0.567 6 8 0.498 6 9 瑶族 0.510 3 8 0.474 4 16 0.478 0 15 0.492 4 11 0.506 7 8 土家族 0.554 4 7 0.717 9 5 0.701 6 4 0.636 2 7 0.570 8 7 蒙古族 0.689 3 6 0.609 0 9 0.617 0 8 0.649 2 6 0.681 3 6 佤族 0.703 9 5 0.737 2 3 0.733 9 3 0.720 6 4 0.707 2 5 藏族 1.049 3 4 0.647 4 7 0.687 6 5 0.848 4 3 1.009 1 3 维吾尔族 1.052 0 3 0.371 8 20 0.439 8 17 0.711 9 5 0.984 0 4 傈僳族 1.163 8 2 0.743 6 2 0.785 6 2 0.953 7 2 1.121 8 2 哈尼族 1.616 7 1 0.846 2 1 0.923 3 1 1.231 5 1 1.539 7 1
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 祝丽玲, 孟繁君, 杜宁.秩和比法综合评价2015年我国孕产妇保健状况[J].中华疾病控制杂志, 2018, 22(8):859-861. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2018.08.025.Zhu LL, Meng FJ, DuN. Comprehensive evaluation of maternal health situation in China in 2015 by rank sum ratio method[J]. Chin J Dis Control Pre, 2018, 22(8):859-861. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2018.08.025. [2] 孙振球.医学综合评价方法及其应用[M].北京:化学工业出版社, 2006:53-54.Sun ZQ. Research on comprehensive evaluation methods and its application in medical science[M]. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2006:53-54. [3] 刘桂芬.医学统计学[M].第2版.北京:中国协和医科大学出版社, 2007:336-337.Liu GF. Medical statistics[M]. second. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press, 2007:336-337. [4] 王一任.综合评价方法若干问题研究及其医学应用[D].长沙: 中南大学公共卫生学院, 2012.Wang YR. Research on a few issues of comprehensive evaluation methods and its application in medical science[D]. Changsha: School of Public Health, Central South University, 2012. [5] 范炤. TOPSIS法与秩和比法模糊联合对卫生事业管理质量的综合评价[J].中国医院统计, 2000, 7(4):214-216. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JTYY200004007.htmFan Z. A comprehensive evaluation of health management quality by using the fuzzy combined method of TOPSIS and Rank Sum Ratio[J]. Chinese Journal of Hospital Statistics, 2000, 7(4):214-216. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JTYY200004007.htm [6] 李云, 杭惠, 惠东明, 等.秩和比法在传染病疫情网络直报报告质量评价中的应用[J].中华疾病控制杂志, 2007, 11(5):524-525. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-3679.2007.05.024.Li Y, Hang H, Hui DM, et al. Application of RSR in quality evaluation of communicable diseases internet-based reporting[J]. Chin J Dis Control Pre, 2007, 11(5):524-525. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-3679.2007.05.024. [7] Wang M, Fang H, Bishwajit G, et al. Evaluation of rural primary health care in western China: a cross-sectional study[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2015, 12(11):13843-13860. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph121113843. [8] 孙振球, 王乐三.综合评价方法及其医学应用[M].北京:人民卫生出版社, 2014:3547, 5260.Sun ZQ, Wang LS. Research on comprehensive evaluation methods and its application in medical science[M]. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2014:3547, 5260. [9] 何长思, 赵大仁, 孙渤星, 等.基于Topsis和RSR法模糊联合的医疗联合体实效评价[J].中国医院管理, 2016, 36(5):77-79. http://www.cnki.com.cn/article/cjfdtotal-yygl201605005.htmHe CS, Zhao DR, Sun BX, et al. An effectiveness analysis of the medical association by TOPSIS and RSR with the fuzzy combined method in Chengdu[J]. Chin Hosp Manage, 2016, 36(5):77-79. http://www.cnki.com.cn/article/cjfdtotal-yygl201605005.htm [10] 郭文燕, 梅文华, 方国伦. TOPSIS法和RSR法模糊联合对某医院运行管理情况的综合评价[J].中国卫生统计, 2018, 35(5):729-732. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94022X/20185/676634871.htmlGuo WY, Mei WH, Fang GL. A comprehensive evaluation of operational management of hospital based on the RSR, improved TOPSIS and fuzzy combination method[J]. Chin J Health Statistics, 2018, 35(5):729-732. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94022X/20185/676634871.html -
