Weight scales from ratio judgments and comparisons of existent weight scales.

Baker, Katherine; Dudek, Frank J.

doi:10.1037/h0047081

Cited by 78 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1958. p. 116). However, Guilford and Dingman (1954), Baker and Dudek (1955). Goude (1962), andOttander (1967) all report certain inconsistencies between the data and the model.…”

Section: Stimulus Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-task validation of functional measurement

Anderson

1972

Perception & Psychophysics

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1958. p. 116). However, Guilford and Dingman (1954), Baker and Dudek (1955). Goude (1962), andOttander (1967) all report certain inconsistencies between the data and the model.…”

Section: Stimulus Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-task validation of functional measurement

Anderson

1972

Perception & Psychophysics

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Numerous procedures have been suggested to achieve such scales (1,3,5,7,8,9). This study compares results from two different procedures for determining scale values of common adverbs of degree or intensity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In the present study the constant-sum method (1,5,7,8) was used to determine scale values for the adverbs. Here the subject's task is to divide 100 points between two stimuli so as to indicate their relative magnitudes-in this case degree of favorableness or unfavorableness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Scale Values for Adverbs Determined by the Constant-Sum Method and a Successive Intervals Procedure

Dudek¹

1959

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AN intriguing, yet elusive, goal for psychology is the development of ratio scales for psychological dimensions or from subjective judgments. Numerous procedures have been suggested to achieve such scales (1,3,5,7,8,9). This study compares results from two different procedures for determining scale values of common adverbs of degree or intensity.Cliff (4) determined scale values for nine common adverbs of degree in combination with fifteen evaluative adjectives by utilizing a method of successive intervals. In his study, subj ects rated adverbadjective combinations with respect to their &dquo;favorableness&dquo; on an 11-category scale where category &dquo;6&dquo; was identified as neutral ; category &dquo;1&dquo; was labeled most unfavorable; and category &dquo;11&dquo; was most favorable. By utilizing the matrix of scale values for the adverbadjective combinations, it was possible to derive a set of scale values for adverbs and one for adjectives which reproduced the values of the combinations fairly closely.The adverbs (assigned code numbers according to ordinal positions determined by Cliff) were: 0=slightly; 1=somewhat; 2= rather; 3=pretty; 4=unmodified form of adjective; 5=quite; 6=decidedly; 7=unusually; 8=very; and, 9==extremely. The adjectives modified by these adverbs in Cliff's study were:

show abstract

“…Thus we have an empirical demonstration of two procedures converging on the same value. These results prompted us to re-examine some older data where ratios among weight stimuli were estimated directly (Baker and Dudek, 1955).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Details of the CSM procedure for determining scale values from the matrix of point-assignments are given elsewhere (Baker and Dudek, 1955). The computations are rather lengthy and this is possibly one reason why SVs have been determined for groups of Os rather than individual Os.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributions of Scale Values from Subjective Judgments

Dudek¹

1964

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NOT only are there many techniques for determining and defining scales of subjective magnitude, but scales determined by various methods are not related in simple ways. Under the circumstances attempting to determine the properties of resultant scales poses a vexing problem.As Torgerson (1958, p. 113) has pointed out, validation of a scaling procedure cannot be accomplished in general, but only with respect to a particular attribute. Thus our reliance on a scale, or confidence in a scaling procedure, and our decisions on how it might be applied will depend on accumulated empirical information as to how it functions in different contexts.The matter of individual differences has received little attention, but Stevens (1956) and McGill (1960) consider certain aspects of the problem. Epecially where numerical responses are required one might ask whether observed differences are a function of the manner in which individuals perceive the psychological dimension involved or the manner in which they use numbers in reporting these perceptions. Experiments involving cross-modality procedures are encouraging in that they have shown, at least for several dimensions, that 0's do make consistent judgments whether the responses are made in numerical terms or in terms of some other perceptual dimension (Dudek and Baker, 1957;Stevens, 1959).

show abstract

Weight scales from ratio judgments and comparisons of existent weight scales.

Cited by 78 publications

References 7 publications

Cross-task validation of functional measurement

Cross-task validation of functional measurement

A Comparison of Scale Values for Adverbs Determined by the Constant-Sum Method and a Successive Intervals Procedure

Distributions of Scale Values from Subjective Judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About