Assessing Microcredit Eligibility Using LOGSTA Weighting and Comprehensive Distance-Based Ranking: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
Keywords:
COBRA, Decision Support System, LOGSTA, MCDM, Microcredit EligibilityAbstract
This study aims to determine microcredit eligibility objectively and systematically through the integration of the logarithmic normalization and standard deviation (LOGSTA) weighting method with the comprehensive distance-based ranking method (COBRA) within a Decision Support System framework. LOGSTA is used to generate criterion weights objectively based on data variations, while COBRA is applied to rank alternatives by considering their comprehensive distance from the ideal conditions. The study involves several microcredit eligibility criteria and a number of prospective credit recipients analyzed quantitatively. The results indicate that the LOGSTA–COBRA integration can produce clear and measurable eligibility rankings, with Candidate A8 ranking first with a final score of 0.0345, followed by Candidate A2 with a score of 0.0319 and Candidate A7 with a score of 0.0280. Sensitivity analysis through various scenarios of changes in criteria weights shows that the main ranking structure is relatively stable, indicating the robustness of the method against variations in criteria importance. Furthermore, comparisons with several popular MCDM methods such as SAW, TOPSIS, MOORA, GRA, MAUT, and WASPAS using fixed LOGSTA weights show that the proposed method provides competitive and consistent results. These findings affirm that the LOGSTA–COBRA approach can be a reliable alternative to support more objective, transparent, and accountable microcredit eligibility decision-making.
Downloads
References
[1] F. M. M. Namayengo, G. Antonides, and J. van Ophem, “Impact of Microcredit on Performance of Women-Owned Non-Farm Microenterprises,” Rev. Dev. Econ., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1940–1951, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1111/rode.13205.
[2] L. A. Mwonge, C. S. Tundui, and R. M. Lihawa, “Exploring microcredit use patterns of Tanzanian smallholder farmers through multinomial logistic regression,” Discov. Sustain., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 434, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s43621-026-02829-2.
[3] A. Alqatan, N. Talbi, H. Behbehani, S. Ben Belgacem, M. Arslan, and W. Sbeiti, “Dynamic Interaction Between Microfinance and Household Well-Being: Evidence from the Microcredit Progressive Model for Sustainable Development,” Econometrics, vol. 13, no. 1. 2025. doi: 10.3390/econometrics13010012.
[4] A. Shahriar, “Impact of Poverty Reduction through Micro-credit: A Research on Bangladesh Perspective,” Int. J. Trendy Res. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 91–105, 2025, doi: 10.54473/IJTRET.2025.9209.
[5] P. Papadopoulos, M. Soflano, Y. Chaudy, W. Adejo, and T. M. Connolly, “A systematic review of technologies and standards used in the development of rule-based clinical decision support systems,” Health Technol. (Berl)., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 713–727, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12553-022-00672-9.
[6] S. K. Sahoo, B. B. Choudhury, and P. R. Dhal, “A Comprehensive Review of Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods: Advancements, Applications, and Future Directions,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., vol. 4, no. 1 SE-Articles, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.31181/sdmap41202764.
[7] A. Sghaier, “Determinants of success for microcredit-funded projects: evidence from Tunisia’s BTS program,” Manag. Sustain. An Arab Rev., pp. 1–20, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1108/MSAR-06-2025-0218.
[8] Z. Stevic, A. Ulutas, A. Topal, D. Marinkovic, and S. Cavoski, “A New Objective Method for Determining Criteria Weights in MCDM Models–Logsta,” Int. J. Simul. Model., vol. 24, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM24-4-738.
[9] P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, E. B. Tirkolaee, A. M. Alshamrani, and A. F. Alrasheedi, “Pythagorean fuzzy comprehensive distance-based ranking approach for assessing industry 4.0 adoption strategies in the automotive manufacturing sector,” Adv. Eng. Informatics, vol. 65, p. 103359, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2025.103359.
[10] B. Kizielewicz and W. Sałabun, “SITW Method: A New Approach to Re-identifying Multi-criteria Weights in Complex Decision Analysis,” Spectr. Mech. Eng. Oper. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 215–226, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.31181/smeor11202419.
[11] G. Popović, Đ. Pucar, and F. Smarandache, “MEREC-COBRA Approach in E-Commerce Development Strategy Selection,” J. Process Manag. new Technol., vol. 10, no. 3–4, pp. 66–74, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.5937/jpmnt10-41073.
[12] V. Mirčetić et al., “Navigating the Complexity of HRM Practice: A Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Framework,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 23. 2024. doi: 10.3390/math12233769.
[13] K. Zorlu, M. Tuncer, and A. Yılmaz, “Assessment of Resources for Geotourism Development: Integrated SWARA-COBRA Approach Under Spherical Fuzzy Environments,” Geoheritage, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 89, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12371-024-00993-3.
[14] M. Mohamed, S. Ayman, and J. Ye, “Assessment of Cybersecurity in Industry 4.0 using Delphi-Based Factor Relationships and Comprehensive Distance-Based Ranking Methods under Uncertainty,” Artif. Intell. Cybersecurity, vol. 1, pp. 21–36, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.61356/j.aics.2024.1296.
[15] P. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Fu, and P. Wang, “Graph model for conflict resolution based on the combination of probabilistic uncertain linguistic and EDAS method,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 660, no. 3, pp. 120–136, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2024.120116.
[16] L. Csató, “How to choose a completion method for pairwise comparison matrices with missing entries: An axiomatic result,” Int. J. Approx. Reason., vol. 164, p. 109063, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2023.109063.
[17] Y.-C. Chuang, S.-K. Hu, J. J. H. Liou, and G.-H. Tzeng, “A data-driven MADM model for personnel selection and improvement,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 751–784, 2020, doi: 10.3846/tede.2020.12366.
[18] S. Sedighi Khavidak, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, and A. Nemati, “Selection of portable hard disk drive using ENTROPY-COBRA-MARCOS-MAIRCA: A case of the Iranian market,” Decis. Mak. Artif. Intell. Trends, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 52–76, 2024, doi: 10.22034/dmait.2024.199487.
[19] P. Liu and D. Wang, “A 2-dimensional uncertain linguistic MABAC method for multiattribute group decision-making problems,” Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 349–360, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40747-021-00372-3.
[20] M. Krstić, S. Tadić, P. P. Miglietta, and D. Porrini, “Biodiversity Protection Practices in Supply Chain Management: A Novel Hybrid Grey Best–Worst Method/Axial Distance-Based Aggregated Measurement Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3. 2025. doi: 10.3390/app15031354.
[21] N. Hendrastuty, J. Wang, A. Sulistiyawati, D. Darwis, and Y. Jumaryadi, “Combination of MOORA and ITARA Methods in Decision Support Systems for Measuring the Performance of Quality Control Teams,” vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 727–739, 2025, doi: 10.47065/tin.v6i6.8382.
[22] W. Aydi and M. Alatiyyah, “Pareto parameter estimation by merging locally weighted median of multiple neural networks and weighted least squares,” Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 87, pp. 524–532, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.12.063.
[23] A. Alamoodi et al., “Evaluating agriculture 4.0 decision support systems based on hyperbolic fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency combined with combinative distance-based assessment,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 227, p. 109618, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109618.
[24] A. R. Mishra, P. Rani, F. Cavallaro, I. M. Hezam, and J. Lakshmi, “An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Closeness Coefficient-Based OCRA Method for Sustainable Urban Transportation Options Selection,” Axioms, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 144, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/axioms12020144.
[25] M. Sanjari-Parizi, Z. Sazvar, S. Nayeri, and R. Mehralizade, “Novel decision-making methods for the sustainable warehouse location selection problem considering the value alteration boundaries and accumulation of alternatives,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 2977–3002, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10098-024-02759-5.
[26] A. Yudhistira, S. Setiawansyah, T. Ardiansah, S. Maryana, Y. Yadin, and R. Oktaviani, “Development of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory Methods in Dynamic Decision Models Using Change-Data Driven,” Evergreen, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 3279–3289, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.5109/7326962.
[27] I. Z. Mukhametzyanov and D. Pamucar, “Equivalence of MCDM Methods and Synthesis of Solution Based on Ratings Obtained in Different Models,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–20, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.31181/dmame8220251473.
[28] A. M. Yiğit, “Supplier Selection with AHP, TOPSIS and WASPAS as Multi-criteria Decision-making Techniques: An Application in Office Chairs Industry,” Uluslararası İşletme Bilim. ve Uygulamaları Derg., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 116–130, 2025.
[29] K. Yu, Q. Wu, X. Chen, W. Wang, and A. Mardani, “An integrated MCDM framework for evaluating the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable business performance,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 342, no. 1, pp. 987–1018, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10479-023-05616-8.
[30] Juanda, S. Hartuti, and R. Agustina, “Effect of microwave heating on sensory quality assessment of butterfly pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) flower using simple additive weighting,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1290, no. 1, p. 012020, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1290/1/012020.
[31] S. Dash, S. Chakravarty, N. C. Giri, and R. Khargotra, “Evaluating sustainable wind energy sources with multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques,” Comput. Electr. Eng., vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 110–123, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2025.110285.
[32] R. Gunasekaran, P. Hariharan, and B. M. Prasanth, “Studies on Different Multi-criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Micro-Electrical Discharge Machining of Titanium Alloy,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11665-025-11343-x.
[33] H. Lu, Y. Zhao, X. Zhou, and Z. Wei, “Selection of Agricultural Machinery Based on Improved CRITIC-Entropy Weight and GRA-TOPSIS Method,” Processes, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 266, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/pr10020266.
[34] I. Gokasar and I. Okur, “A Multi-Criteria Utility Approach to Bridge Maintenance Prioritization,” Knowl. Decis. Syst. with Appl., vol. 1, pp. 35–56, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.59543/kadsa.v1i.13625.
Downloads
PUBLISHED DATE SCHEDULE
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Desyanti Desyanti, Imam Ahmad, Sanusi Sanusi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
