动机评级的传递性研究

Q3 Social Sciences Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Pub Date : 2021-06-29 DOI:10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8083
Yulia Tumeneva, K. Vergeles
{"title":"动机评级的传递性研究","authors":"Yulia Tumeneva, K. Vergeles","doi":"10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measurement in social sciences implies that the measured feature is quantitative, or in other words that it is possible not only to arrange the values of any given attribute, but also to express the difference between ordered magnitudes using a certain unit of measurement. However the need to verify this basic assumption is often ignored. And though there are a few possible excuses for this, but fundamentally this neglect distracts the social sciences from its main task of exploring reality. In this work, one of the requirements for the ordinal structure of motives was checked, namely the requirement of transitivity: if a > b and b > c, then a > c. If transitivity is not observed, then motives cannot be evaluated even on an ordinal scale (“more – less”, “stronger – weaker”), not to mention their quantitative measurement, which all methods that use Likert scales are supposedly tailored to. On a sample of 250 students, it was shown that about half of the respondents established transitivity when arranging their motives (internal, external and social ones), which justifies the use of ordinal scales for motivation assessment, at least for these motives and for two values: “more” and “less”; however, even in these cases, further validation of the assumptions about additivity when it comes to measuring motives is required to justify the use of Likert scales. The other part of the respondents (about 40%) could neither distinguish nor arrange their motives, therefore not only measuring, but even defining the order of their motives in these cases is impossible. It is concluded that the transitivity error is associated with the individual characteristics of the respondents and requires further study as a systematic error.","PeriodicalId":35261,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Studying the Transitivity of Motivation Ratings\",\"authors\":\"Yulia Tumeneva, K. Vergeles\",\"doi\":\"10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Measurement in social sciences implies that the measured feature is quantitative, or in other words that it is possible not only to arrange the values of any given attribute, but also to express the difference between ordered magnitudes using a certain unit of measurement. However the need to verify this basic assumption is often ignored. And though there are a few possible excuses for this, but fundamentally this neglect distracts the social sciences from its main task of exploring reality. In this work, one of the requirements for the ordinal structure of motives was checked, namely the requirement of transitivity: if a > b and b > c, then a > c. If transitivity is not observed, then motives cannot be evaluated even on an ordinal scale (“more – less”, “stronger – weaker”), not to mention their quantitative measurement, which all methods that use Likert scales are supposedly tailored to. On a sample of 250 students, it was shown that about half of the respondents established transitivity when arranging their motives (internal, external and social ones), which justifies the use of ordinal scales for motivation assessment, at least for these motives and for two values: “more” and “less”; however, even in these cases, further validation of the assumptions about additivity when it comes to measuring motives is required to justify the use of Likert scales. The other part of the respondents (about 40%) could neither distinguish nor arrange their motives, therefore not only measuring, but even defining the order of their motives in these cases is impossible. It is concluded that the transitivity error is associated with the individual characteristics of the respondents and requires further study as a systematic error.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会科学中的测量意味着被测量的特征是定量的,或者换句话说,不仅可以排列任何给定属性的值,还可以使用特定的测量单位来表达有序大小之间的差异。然而,验证这一基本假设的必要性往往被忽视。尽管这有一些可能的借口,但从根本上说,这种忽视分散了社会科学探索现实的主要任务。在这项工作中,检查了动机的有序结构的一个要求,即及物性的要求:如果a>b和b>c,那么a>c。如果没有观察到及物性,那么动机即使在有序量表上也无法评估(“更多-更少”、“更强-更弱”),更不用说它们的定量测量了,在250名学生的样本中,研究表明,大约一半的受访者在安排动机(内部、外部和社会动机)时建立了及物性,这证明了使用有序量表进行动机评估是合理的,至少对于这些动机和两个值:“更多”和“更少”;然而,即使在这些情况下,在衡量动机时,也需要进一步验证关于可加性的假设,以证明使用Likert量表的合理性。另一部分受访者(约40%)既无法区分也无法安排他们的动机,因此在这些情况下,不仅无法衡量,甚至无法确定他们的动机顺序。结论是,传递性错误与被调查者的个体特征有关,作为一种系统性错误需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Studying the Transitivity of Motivation Ratings
Measurement in social sciences implies that the measured feature is quantitative, or in other words that it is possible not only to arrange the values of any given attribute, but also to express the difference between ordered magnitudes using a certain unit of measurement. However the need to verify this basic assumption is often ignored. And though there are a few possible excuses for this, but fundamentally this neglect distracts the social sciences from its main task of exploring reality. In this work, one of the requirements for the ordinal structure of motives was checked, namely the requirement of transitivity: if a > b and b > c, then a > c. If transitivity is not observed, then motives cannot be evaluated even on an ordinal scale (“more – less”, “stronger – weaker”), not to mention their quantitative measurement, which all methods that use Likert scales are supposedly tailored to. On a sample of 250 students, it was shown that about half of the respondents established transitivity when arranging their motives (internal, external and social ones), which justifies the use of ordinal scales for motivation assessment, at least for these motives and for two values: “more” and “less”; however, even in these cases, further validation of the assumptions about additivity when it comes to measuring motives is required to justify the use of Likert scales. The other part of the respondents (about 40%) could neither distinguish nor arrange their motives, therefore not only measuring, but even defining the order of their motives in these cases is impossible. It is concluded that the transitivity error is associated with the individual characteristics of the respondents and requires further study as a systematic error.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” publishes the articles on sociological disciplines. Interdisciplinary studies in sociology and related disciplines, such as social psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, ethnography, etc. — are also welcomed. The main emphasis is on the fundamental research in the field of theory, methodology and history of sociology. The regular rubric highlights the results of mass surveys and case studies. The rubric “Discussion”, which debated the controversial issues of sociological research, is regular as well. The journal publishes book reviews, and summaries, as well as lists of new books in Russian and English, which represent the main areas of interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. The journal aims to not only play samples of knowledge, considered regulatory and standards of internal expertise in the professional community, but also aims for opportunities to improve them. These rules, a tough selection and decision to print only a small portion of incoming materials allow “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” contribute to improving the quality of sociological research. Submitted manuscripts should show a high integrity in problem setting, problem analysis and correspond to the journal’s thematic profile and its scientific priorities.
期刊最新文献
Theoretical Approaches Towards Studying Motivation for Surrogate Motherhood A Person that Feels, Values, and Studies Time. Professor Garold E. Zborovsky is 85 Years Old Is it Possible for a Society to Exist Without Development? Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects Batygin’s Lesson stuck with me on my Professional Path — Always Check Yourself to Make Sure your Conclusions Can Be Substantiated”. Interview Prepared by D.M. Rogozin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1