The Study of Individuals in Psychophysical Measurement

Teghtsoonian, Robert

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74382-5_8

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fixed reference results suggest a break or dip at around 60 dB. Departures from linearity of this sort have frequently been found in magnitude estimation experiments (see Gregson, 1976; Teghtsoonian, 1985).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: Models and theory.

DeCarlo¹,

Cross²

1990

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

112

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on sequential effects in magnitude scaling is reviewed, and its implications about the adequacy of current time series regression models is discussed. A regression model that unifies what at first appear to be contradictory results is proposed. Theoretical models of judgment and perception are introduced, and their relation to alternative regression models is clarified. A theoretical model of relative judgment that clarifies the role of judgmental error and frames of reference in magnitude scaling is examined in detail. Four experiments that test the model are presented. The results, along with recent results presented by Ward (1987), provide support for the model. The importance of being explicit about the relation of theoretical models to regression models and about the role of error in these models is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: Models and theory.

DeCarlo¹,

Cross²

1990

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

112

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not surprising, because 5 to 10% of normal subjects cannot give ratings that correlate with changes in respiratory stimuli (40,41), and the semantic distinction between intensity and unpleasantness is more subtle than subjects are ordinarily called on to make. We did not attempt to exclude such subjects from this study, as they will occur in a clinical population, but such subjects can be screened using pretests of rating correlation with repeated known stimuli (40,42). Even with these limitations, the MDP was capable of showing a clear difference in affective response between kinds of dyspnea.…”

Section: Mdp Measurement Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Affective Dimension of Laboratory Dyspnea

Banzett

Pedersen²,

Schwartzstein³

et al. 2008

Am J Respir Crit Care Med

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One source of systematic bias is individual differences in the use of rating 1 scales and the use of numeric values. Such differences in rating behavior are clearly described in psychometrics, mainly concerning the range and standard deviation of numerics in ratings (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). The spread of ratings used by each subject affects the exponent (71) in the mentioned power function, with a greater spread resulting in a higher exponent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Possible bias from rating behavior when subjects rate both exposure and outcome

Toomingas¹,

Alfredsson²,

Kilbom³

1997

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Possible bias from rating behavior when subjects rate both exposure and outcome by Toomingas A, Alfredsson L, Kilbom ÅThe following articles refer to this text: 2001;27(1): 30-40; 2002;28(5):293-303; 2004;30(1):56-63; 2008;34(4) Objectives In many epidemiologic studies the subjects rate both the exposure and the outcome, assigning numerical values to the variables according to their perceptions and judgments. Hypothetically, subjects who tend to overestimate, exaggerate, or use high numerical values in rating tasks would rate both exposure and outcorne higher than subjects who tend to underestimate, dissimulate, or use low numerical values. A range of such rating behaviors among the subjects would introduce uncontrollable bias to relative risk estimates, in most cases an overestimation. The aim of this study was to assess the possible presence of and effects on relative risk estimates of such high and low rating behavior among subjects in an epidemiologic study of n~usculoskeletal disorders. Methods Rating behavior was analyzed by intercoil-elating the ratings of 19 different stimuli. High positive correlations would indicate the presence of high and low rating behavior. Results The cosrelations were, however, both positive and negative and close to zero. Adjusting for rating behavior did not affect relative risk estimates, based on subjective ratings of both exposure and outcome. CO~C~US~OII There is no support in this study for the existence of a range of high and low rating behavior among subjects who rate neutral and nonaffective stimuli, such as time, weight, number and physical exposure, as well as pain and other symptoms. There is therefore no support for the idea of a bias to relative risk estimates from such rating behavior in studies where subjects rate both exposure and outcome variables of this kind. Key terms individual differences, judgment, methods, response style, risk assessment, validity.In epidemiologic studies quantitative data about both exposure factors and outcome phenomena are often acquired by subjective judgments or ratings. In the science of psychometrics such rated phenomena are called "stimuli" and the resulting judgments or ratings are referred to as rating^".^ "Stimuli", in the context of epidemiology, include studied or confounding exposure factors (physical, psychosocial, etc) and outcome phenomena (sick leave, pain, well-being, etc). "Ratings" in the context of epidemiology would be the overt judgments or ratings of these phenomena as a result of a perceptual and cognitive process, which by its nature must be described as subjective. Such judgments or ratings could be given as verbal expressions ("very heavy", "now and then"), as free numerations ("23 kg", "5 timeslday") or as values on rating scales [Likert scales, VAS (visual analogue scales), etc].The relation between stimulus and rating magnitudes has been described as a power function by Stevens (1) and later modified by Ekman and others (algorithm 1) (2):where R = rating magnitude, S = stimulus magnitude,Such stimulus-rat...

show abstract

The Study of Individuals in Psychophysical Measurement

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: Models and theory.

Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: Models and theory.

The Affective Dimension of Laboratory Dyspnea

Possible bias from rating behavior when subjects rate both exposure and outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About