Classic Delphi and Fuzzy Delphi methods are used to test content validity of data collection tools such as questionnaires. Fuzzy Delphi takes the opinion issued by judges from a linguistic perspective reducing ambiguity in opinions by using fuzzy numbers. We propose an extension named 2-Tuple Fuzzy Linguistic Delphi method to deal with scenarios in which judges show different expertise degrees by using fuzzy multigranular semantics of the linguistic terms and to obtain intermediate and final results expressed by 2-tuple linguistic values. The key idea of our proposal is to validate the full questionnaire by means of the evaluation of its parts, defining the validity of each item as a Decision Making problem. Taking the opinion of experts, we measure the degree of consensus, the degree of consistency, and the linguistic score of each item, in order to detect those items that affect, positively or negatively, the quality of the instrument. Considering the real need to evaluate a b-learning educational experience with a consensual questionnaire, we present a Decision Making model for questionnaire validation that solves it. Additionally, we contribute to this consensus reaching problem by developing an online tool under GPL v3 license. The software visualizes the collective valuations for each iteration and assists to determine which parts of the questionnaire should be modified to reach a consensual solution.
Decision making models are constrained by taking the expert evaluations with pre-defined numerical or linguistic terms. We claim that the use of sentiment analysis will allow decision making models to consider expert evaluations in natural language. Accordingly, we propose the Sentiment Analysis based Multi-person Multi-criteria Decision Making (SA-MpMcDM) methodology, which builds the expert evaluations from their natural language reviews, and even from their numerical ratings if they are available. The SA-MpMcDM methodology incorporates an end-to-end multi-task deep learning model for aspect based sentiment analysis, named DMuABSA model, able to identify the aspect categories mentioned in an expert review, and to distill their opinions and criteria. The individual expert evaluations are aggregated via a criteria weighting through the attention of the experts. We evaluate the methodology in a restaurant decision problem, hence we build the TripR-2020 dataset of restaurant reviews, which we manually annotate and release. We analyze the SA-MpMcDM methodology in different scenarios using and not using natural language and numerical evaluations. The analysis shows that the combination of both sources of information results in a higher quality preference vector.