Table 8 Results of sensitivity analysis.

From: Prioritizing disability support systems by using Tamir’s complex fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators

Different values of parameter

Score vales

Ranking

For \({\text{s}}=2\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.3400\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.5030,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.7170,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.7100\)

For \({\text{s}}=3\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.333\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.582,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.850,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.777\)

For \({\text{s}}=4\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.361\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.698,\)

\(Scr.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.937,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.836\)

For \({\text{s}}=5\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.408\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.809,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.977,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.888\)

For \({\text{s}}=6\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.469\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.891,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.992,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.929\)

For \({\text{s}}=7\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.539\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.943,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.997,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.959\)

For \({\text{s}}=8\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.613\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.972,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.999,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.977\)

For \({\text{s}}=9\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.686\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.986,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=990,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.988\)

For \({\text{s}}=10\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{1}\right)=0.753\),

\({\text{A}}_{\text{alt-3}}> {\text{A}}_{\text{alt-4}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-2}}>{\text{A}}_{\text{alt-1}}\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{2}\right)=0.994,\)

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{3}\right)=0.999\),

\(\text{Scr}.\left({{\text{L}}}_{4}\right)=0.998\)

  1. From the analysis of Table 8, we can say that the variation in parameter values does not affect the ranking results. In this way, we can say that CFDWA AOs are stable and reliable tools for clinical decision-making problems.