考虑两极性的评定量表的言语化

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Field Methods Pub Date : 2023-01-15 DOI:10.1177/1525822x231151314
Natalja Menold
{"title":"考虑两极性的评定量表的言语化","authors":"Natalja Menold","doi":"10.1177/1525822x231151314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While numerical bipolar rating scales may evoke positivity bias, little is known about the corresponding bias in verbal bipolar rating scales. The choice of verbalization of the middle category may lead to response bias, particularly if it is not in line with the scale polarity. Unipolar and bipolar seven-category rating scales in which the verbalizations of the middle categories matched or did not match the implemented polarity were investigated in randomized experiments using a non-probabilistic online access panel in Germany. Bipolar rating scales exhibited higher positivity bias and acquiescence than unipolar rating scales. Reliability, validity, and equidistance tended to be violated if the verbalizations of the middle category did not match scale polarity. The results provide a rationale for rating scale verbalization.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verbalization of Rating Scales Taking Account of Their Polarity\",\"authors\":\"Natalja Menold\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1525822x231151314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While numerical bipolar rating scales may evoke positivity bias, little is known about the corresponding bias in verbal bipolar rating scales. The choice of verbalization of the middle category may lead to response bias, particularly if it is not in line with the scale polarity. Unipolar and bipolar seven-category rating scales in which the verbalizations of the middle categories matched or did not match the implemented polarity were investigated in randomized experiments using a non-probabilistic online access panel in Germany. Bipolar rating scales exhibited higher positivity bias and acquiescence than unipolar rating scales. Reliability, validity, and equidistance tended to be violated if the verbalizations of the middle category did not match scale polarity. The results provide a rationale for rating scale verbalization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Field Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Field Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x231151314\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x231151314","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然数字双相评定量表可能会引发积极偏见,但对言语双相评定表中相应的偏见知之甚少。选择中间类别的动词化可能会导致反应偏差,特别是如果它不符合量表的极性。在德国使用非概率在线访问面板进行的随机实验中,研究了单极性和双极性七类评定量表,其中中间类别的措辞与实施的极性匹配或不匹配。两极评定量表比单极评定量表表现出更高的积极偏向和默许。如果中间类别的措辞与量表的极性不匹配,则倾向于违反信度、有效性和等距性。研究结果为评定量表语言化提供了依据。
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
Verbalization of Rating Scales Taking Account of Their Polarity
While numerical bipolar rating scales may evoke positivity bias, little is known about the corresponding bias in verbal bipolar rating scales. The choice of verbalization of the middle category may lead to response bias, particularly if it is not in line with the scale polarity. Unipolar and bipolar seven-category rating scales in which the verbalizations of the middle categories matched or did not match the implemented polarity were investigated in randomized experiments using a non-probabilistic online access panel in Germany. Bipolar rating scales exhibited higher positivity bias and acquiescence than unipolar rating scales. Reliability, validity, and equidistance tended to be violated if the verbalizations of the middle category did not match scale polarity. The results provide a rationale for rating scale verbalization.
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
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting What predicts willingness to participate in a follow-up panel study among respondents to a national web/mail survey? Invited Review: Collecting Data through Dyadic Interviews: A Systematic Review Offering Web Response as a Refusal Conversion Technique in a Mixed-mode Survey Network of Categories: A Method to Aggregate Egocentric Network Survey Data into a Whole Network Structure
×
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