On the validity of MAPE as a measure of population forecast accuracy

On the validity of MAPE as a measure of population forecast accuracy The mean absolute percent error (MAPE) is the summary measure most often used for evaluating the accuracy of population forecasts. While MAPE has many desirable criteria, we argue from both normative and relative standpoints that the widespread practice of exclusively using it for evaluating population forecasts should be changed. Normatively, we argue that MAPE does not meet the criterion of validity because as a summary measure it overstates the error found in a population forecast. We base this argument on logical grounds and support it empirically, using a sample of population forecasts for counties. From a relative standpoint, we examine two alternatives to MAPE, both sharing with it, the important conceptual feature of using most of the information about error. These alternatives are symmetrical MAPE (SMAPE) and a class of measures known as M-estimators. The empirical evaluation suggests M-estimators do not overstate forecast error as much as either MAPE or SMAPE and are, therefore, more valid measures of accuracy. We consequently recommend incorporating M-estimators into the evaluation toolkit. Because M-estimators do not meet the desired criterion of interpretative ease as well as MAPE, we also suggest another approach that focuses on nonlinear transformations of the error distribution. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Population Research and Policy Review Springer Journals

On the validity of MAPE as a measure of population forecast accuracy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/on-the-validity-of-mape-as-a-measure-of-population-forecast-accuracy-8itNPGZyol
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Social Sciences; Demography; Sociology, general; Population Economics
ISSN
0167-5923
eISSN
1573-7829
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1006166418051
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The mean absolute percent error (MAPE) is the summary measure most often used for evaluating the accuracy of population forecasts. While MAPE has many desirable criteria, we argue from both normative and relative standpoints that the widespread practice of exclusively using it for evaluating population forecasts should be changed. Normatively, we argue that MAPE does not meet the criterion of validity because as a summary measure it overstates the error found in a population forecast. We base this argument on logical grounds and support it empirically, using a sample of population forecasts for counties. From a relative standpoint, we examine two alternatives to MAPE, both sharing with it, the important conceptual feature of using most of the information about error. These alternatives are symmetrical MAPE (SMAPE) and a class of measures known as M-estimators. The empirical evaluation suggests M-estimators do not overstate forecast error as much as either MAPE or SMAPE and are, therefore, more valid measures of accuracy. We consequently recommend incorporating M-estimators into the evaluation toolkit. Because M-estimators do not meet the desired criterion of interpretative ease as well as MAPE, we also suggest another approach that focuses on nonlinear transformations of the error distribution.

Journal

Population Research and Policy ReviewSpringer Journals

Published: Sep 30, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off