Lighting and display screens: Models for predicting luminance limits and disturbance

2018

LEUKOS

Do responses gained using category rating accurately reflect respondents' true evaluations of an item? "True" in this sense means that they have a real opinion about the issue, rather than being compelled by the survey to speculate an opinion, and that the strength of that opinion is faithfully captured. This article describes some common issues that suggest that it should not be simply assumed that a response gained using category rating reflects a true evaluation. That assumption requires an experiment to have been carefully designed and interpreted, and examples are shown where this is not the case. The article offers recommendations for good practice.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Category Rating to Evaluate the Lit Environment: Is a Meaningful Opinion Captured?

2018

LEUKOS

“…Converging operations can involve variations in research design and in the outcome measures, or both together. For example, category rating and adjustment procedures were used in parallel in three studies [Osterhaus & Bailey 1992, Ngai & Boyce 2000, Ramasoot & Fotios 2012. A caveat to converging operations is the potential for opportunistic findings -reporting the findings of the procedure which resulted in convenient findings and ignoring those of the other procedure [Wicherts et al 2016].…”

Section: Recommendations For Good Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Discomfort from Glare: Recommendations for Good Practice

Kent

2020

LEUKOS

This article presents a review of the methods used for subjective evaluation of discomfort from glare, focusing on the two procedures most frequently used in past researchadjustment and category rating. Evidence is presented to demonstrate that some aspects of these procedures influence the evaluation, such as the range of glare source luminances available in an adjustment procedure, leading to biased evaluations and which hence reduce the reliability and validity of the data. The article offers recommendations for good practice when using these procedures and also suggests alternative methods that might be explored in further work.

“…Clear definitions of the meanings of each descriptor might help reduce confusion but this appears to have been done in only a few studies [20][21][22] and these three were associated with glare and display screens. Osterhaus and Bailey 20 used a four-point scale with response labels defined as imperceptible, noticeable, disturbing and intolerable.…”

Section: Observations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 A de Boer-like scale has been used in three studies of interior lighting. [17][18][19] Other studies have used something other than a 9-point de Boer-like scale: Three have examined glare and display screens using response ranges of 4, 5 or 6 points, [20][21][22] two have examined daylight glare using a 4-point scale, 23,24 and three have used abstract conditions to examine involuntary physiological responses to glare using a 10-point scale 25,26 or an analogue scale. 27 The de Boer and de Boer-like scales show a number of ambiguities.…”

Section: Observations and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Note: Uncertainty in subjective evaluation of discomfort glare

Lighting Research & Technology

2015

The magnitude of discomfort glare has often been evaluated using the de Boer rating scale. This note raises doubts about measuring discomfort glare this way.There is a possibility that the presence of discomfort may be a false alarm because this rating scale forces an opinion and/or because the response scale does not include a 'no glare' option. Further, there is a possibility that response variance is increased through uncertainty over the meaning of the magnitude descriptors.Actions that will reduce the likelihood of such distortions occurring are suggested.