Constructing decision- and risk-analysis probability models often requires
measures of dependence among variables.;Although data are sometimes availab
le to estimate such measures, in many applications they must be obtained by
means of subjective judgment by experts. We discuss two experimental studi
es that compare the accuracy of six different methods for assessing depende
nce. Our results lead to several conclusions: First, simply asking experts
to report a correlation is a reasonable approach. Direct estimation-is more
accurate than the other methods studied, is not prone to mathematically in
consistent responses (as are some other measures), and is judged to be less
difficult than alternate methods. In addition, directly assessed correlati
ons showed less variability than the correlations derived from other assess
ment methods. Our results also show that experience with the variables can
improve performance somewhat, as can training in a given assessment method.
Finally, if a judge uses several different assessment methods, an average
of the resulting estimates can also lead to better performance.