By contrast, numeric scales are compatible with rational reasoning and their usage for (attitude) measurements in surveys might lead to a conflict between the situational context and the dominating reasoning system, which could result in lower data quality. Therefore, according to Windschitl and Wells (1996), a survey context is more compatible with the associative reasoning system, in which the usage of verbal rating scales suits the given context. When measuring attitudes in surveys, respondents are actually supposed to react spontaneously, because it is less natural to express one’s opinions and attitudes very exactly. At a given point in time, one system can dominate over the other, which has implications for individual reactions and responses. The first is more rational, deliberative, and rule-based, whereas the second is rather associative, spontaneous, and intuitive. According to Windschitl and Wells (1996), two systems of reasoning have been differentiated in psychology and philosophy (e.g., by Epstein 1990 or by Vygotsky 1934). The described broad usage of numeric rating scales contradicts theoretical considerations regarding their possible psychological and cognitive effects. It is important to note that examples from psychological and educational research have not been considered, because the article focuses on social science research. This information on the usage of verbal and numeric labels was extracted from the questionnaires or from show card files. 6 Furthermore, surveys usually use either verbal or numeric rating scales in a rating scale, whereas the use of both verbal and numeric labels seems to be relatively uncommon. 5 Some surveys tend to prefer using verbal rating scales, as, for instance, the German General Social Survey (GGSS/ALLBUS). Examples include the European Value Study 1 (a face-to-face survey), the European Social Survey 2 (a face-to-face survey), the German Longitudinal Election Study 3 (GLES, a multi-mode survey), the GESIS-Panel (a probability sample online panel), 4 and the LISS (a Dutch probability sample online panel). Large-scale population surveys, in general, use both verbal and numeric rating scales, but standards with respect to verbalization have not yet been established. In conclusion, theoretical considerations and the empirical results contradict the current broad usage of numeric scales in online surveys. Cross-sectional reliability was lower and some hypotheses with respect to the criterion validity could not be supported when numeric rating scales were used. The results show that respondents needed more fixations and more time to endorse a category when a rating scale had numeric labels. In the remaining experiments, data for reliability and validity analysis were collected from a German adult sample. In the first experiment, respondents’ cognitive processes were observed by means of eye tracking, that is, determining the respondent’s fixations in different areas of the screen. In this study, verbal and numeric rating scales were compared in split-ballot online survey experiments. Unlike other data collection modes, the effect of labeling rating scales on reliability and validity, as relevant aspects of measurement quality, has seldom been addressed in online surveys. All subjects Allied Health Cardiology & Cardiovascular Medicine Dentistry Emergency Medicine & Critical Care Endocrinology & Metabolism Environmental Science General Medicine Geriatrics Infectious Diseases Medico-legal Neurology Nursing Nutrition Obstetrics & Gynecology Oncology Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine Otolaryngology Palliative Medicine & Chronic Care Pediatrics Pharmacology & Toxicology Psychiatry & Psychology Public Health Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine Radiology Research Methods & Evaluation Rheumatology Surgery Tropical Medicine Veterinary Medicine Cell Biology Clinical Biochemistry Environmental Science Life Sciences Neuroscience Pharmacology & Toxicology Biomedical Engineering Engineering & Computing Environmental Engineering Materials Science Anthropology & Archaeology Communication & Media Studies Criminology & Criminal Justice Cultural Studies Economics & Development Education Environmental Studies Ethnic Studies Family Studies Gender Studies Geography Gerontology & Aging Group Studies History Information Science Interpersonal Violence Language & Linguistics Law Management & Organization Studies Marketing & Hospitality Music Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution Philosophy Politics & International Relations Psychoanalysis Psychology & Counseling Public Administration Regional Studies Religion Research Methods & Evaluation Science & Society Studies Social Work & Social Policy Sociology Special Education Urban Studies & Planning BROWSE JOURNALS
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |