Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. McKelvie (1978)
Graphic rating scales — How many categories?British Journal of Psychology, 69
F. Vijver, K. Leung (1997)
Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research
G. Moors (2007)
Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurementQuality & Quantity, 42
Alain Beuckelaer, J. Kampen, J. Trijp (2013)
An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisonsQuality & Quantity, 47
Hershey Friedman, T. Amoo (1999)
Rating the Rating ScalesSocial Science Research Network
P. Verschuren, B. Arts (2005)
Quantifying influence in complex decision making by means of paired comparisonsQuality and Quantity, 38
Gilbert Churchill, J. Peter (1984)
Research Design Effects on the Reliability of Rating Scales: A Meta-AnalysisJournal of Marketing Research, 21
Carolyn Preston, A. Colman (2000)
Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences.Acta psychologica, 104 1
M. Bech, D. Gyrd-Hansen, T. Kjaer, J. Lauridsen, J. Sørensen (2007)
Graded pairs comparison - does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management.Health economics, 16 5
G. Urban, G. Katz (1983)
Pre-Test-Market Models: Validation and Managerial ImplicationsJournal of Marketing Research, 20
Philip Geier, Pradeep Bansal, Yuval Efrati, Ping Li, Mi Lin, A. Rao (2011)
Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences
D. Alwin (1997)
Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point ScalesSociological Methods & Research, 25
S. Komorita, W. Graham (1965)
Number of Scale Points and the Reliability of ScalesEducational and Psychological Measurement, 25
O. Netzer, Olivier Toubia, Eric Bradlow, E. Dahan, T. Evgeniou, F. Feinberg, E. Feit, Sam Hui, Joseph Johnson, J. Liechty, J. Orlin, V. Rao (2008)
Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurementMarketing Letters, 19
G.L. Peterson, T.C. Brown, D.W. McCollum, P.A. Bell, A.A. Birjulin, A. Clarke (1996)
Forestry, Economics and the Environment
A. Roth (2007)
Handbook of Metrics for Research in Operations Management: Multi-item Measurement Scales and Objective Items
(1993)
Pretest market forecasting
F. Böcker (1988)
Scale forms and their impact on ratings' reliability and validityJournal of Business Research, 17
Ivo Langbroek, A. Beuckelaer (2007)
Between-method convergent validity of four data collection methods in quantitative means-end-chain researchFood Quality and Preference, 18
S. Oishi, Jungwon Hahn, U. Schimmack, Phanikiran Radhakrishan, V. Dzokoto, Stephen Ahadi (2005)
The measurement of values across cultures: A pairwise comparison approachJournal of Research in Personality, 39
A. Bendig (1954)
Reliability and the number of rating-scale categories.Journal of Applied Psychology, 38
J. Dawes (2008)
Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-Point, 7-Point and 10-Point ScalesInternational Journal of Market Research, 50
J. Hofmans, P. Theuns, O. Mairesse (2007)
Impact of the Number of Response Categories on Linearity and Sensitivity of Self-Anchoring Scales, 3
L. Thurstone (1994)
A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 34
Luis Lozano, E. García-Cueto, J. Muñiz (2008)
Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating ScalesMethodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4
D.F. Alwin (1997)
Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales. Which are better?Sociol. Methods Res., 25
Kristiina Janhunen (2012)
A comparison of Likert-type rating and visually-aided rating in a simple moral judgment experimentQuality & Quantity, 46
G. Peterson, T. Brown, Daniel Mccollum, P. Bell, A. Birjulin, A. Clarke, W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, M. Luckert, W. Phillips, W. White (1996)
Moral responsibility effects in valuation of WTA for public and private goods by the method of paired comparison.
J. Hofmans, P. Theuns, O. Mairesse (2007)
Impact of the number of response categories on linearity and sensitivity of self-anchoring scales. A functional measurement approachMethodology, 3
L. Weng (2004)
Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-Retest ReliabilityEducational and Psychological Measurement, 64
R. Day (1965)
Systematic Paired Comparisons in Preference AnalysisJournal of Marketing Research, 2
A. Silk, G. Urban (1978)
Pre-Test-Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement MethodologyJournal of Marketing Research, 15
G.L. Urban (1993)
Handbook in Operations Research and Management Science: marketing, vol. 5
H.H. Friedman, T. Amoo (1999)
Rating the rating scalesJ. Mark. Manag., 9
Sören Scholz, Martin Meißner, Reinhold Decker (2010)
Measuring Consumer Preferences for Complex Products: A Compositional Approach BasedonPaired ComparisonsJournal of Marketing Research, 47
In market research, it is common practice to measure individuals’ brand or product preference through graded paired comparisons (GPCs). One important decision concerns the (odd) number of scale points (e.g., five, seven, nine, or eleven) that has to be assigned to either brands or products in each pair. Using data from an experiment with 122 students, we assessed the extent to which GPCs with a higher number of scale points (requiring more cognitive effort) really outperform GPCs with a smaller number of scale points (requiring less cognitive effort). Our data analyses have shown that one may reduce the (odd) number of scale points from eleven to nine or seven, depending on what minor compromises one is willing to make. The detailed psychometric results presented in this paper are useful to applied researchers as they help them in making well-informed decisions on the number of scale points in a GPC task.
Quality & Quantity – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 23, 2012
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.