Comparative scaling
Download
1 / 37

Comparative Scaling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

Comparative Scaling. Some Key Concepts. Measurement Assigning numbers or other symbols to characteristics of objects being measured, according to predetermined rules. Concept (or Construct) A generalized idea about a class of objects, attributes, occurrences, or processes.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Comparative Scaling' - cora


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Some key concepts
Some Key Concepts

  • Measurement

    • Assigning numbers or other symbols to characteristics of objects being measured, according to predetermined rules.

  • Concept (or Construct)

    • A generalized idea about a class of objects, attributes, occurrences, or processes.

      • Relatively concrete constructs

        • Age, gender, number of children, education, income

      • Relatively abstract constructs

        • Brand loyalty, personality, channel power, satisfaction


Some key concepts1
Some Key Concepts

  • Scaling

    • The generation of a continuum upon which measured objects are located.

  • Scale

    • A quantifying measure – a combination of items that is progressively arranged according to value or magnitude.

    • Purpose is to quantitatively represent an item’s, person’s, or event’s place in the scaling continuum.


Figure 9 3 primary scales of measurement
Figure 9.3 Primary Scales of Measurement

Primary Scales of Measurement

Primary

Scales

Nominal

Scale

Ratio

Scale

Ordinal

Scale

Interval

Scale


Primary scales of measurement
Primary Scales of Measurement

  • Nominal

    • A scale in which the numbers or letters assigned to objects serve as labels for identification or classification.

  • Ordinal

    • A scale that arranges objects or alternatives according to their magnitude in an ordered relationship.


Primary scales of measurement1
Primary Scales of Measurement

  • Interval

    • A scale that both arranges objects according to their magnitudes and

    • Distinguishes the ordered arrangement in units of equal intervals

    • I.e., indicate order and measure order (or distance) in units of equal intervals


Primary scales of measurement2
Primary Scales of Measurement

  • Ratio

    • A scale that has absolute rather than relative quantities and an absolute zero where a given attribute is absent.

    • Money & weight are good examples of attributes that possess absolute zeros and interval properties.


Figure 9 4 primary scales of measurement
Figure 9.4 Primary Scales of Measurement

Primary Scales of Measurement

Scale

NominalNumbers

Assigned 1 31 8

to Drivers/Cars

OrdinalRank Order Third Second First

of race finishers Place Place Place

Interval Championship

Points earned 170 175 185

Ratio Time to Finish,

behind winner 5.1 2.3 0.0


Classifying scaling techniques
Classifying Scaling Techniques

  • Comparative Scales

    • Involve the direct comparison of two or more objects

  • Noncomparative Scales

    • Objects or stimuli are scaled independently of each other.


Figure 9 5 a classification of scaling techniques
Figure 9.5 A Classification of Scaling Techniques

Classifying Scaling Techniques

Scaling

Techniques

Noncomparative

Scales

Comparative

Scales

Itemized

Rating Scales

Continuous

Rating Scales

Paired

Comparison

Constant

Sum

Rank

Order

Likert

Stapel

Semantic

Differential


Paired comparison scaling
Paired Comparison Scaling

  • Respondent is presented with two objects at a time

  • Then asked to select one object in the pair according to some criterion

  • Data obtained are ordinal in nature

    • Arranged or ranked in order of magnitude

  • Easy to do if only a few items are compared.

  • If number of comparisons is too large, respondents may become fatigued and no longer carefully discriminate among them.


Paired comparison scaling example
Paired Comparison Scaling: Example

For each pair of professors, please indicate the professor from whom you prefer to take classes with a 1.


Rank order scaling
Rank Order Scaling

  • Respondents are presented with several objects simultaneously

  • Then asked to order or rank them according to some criterion.

  • Data obtained are ordinal in nature

    • Arranged or ranked in order of magnitude

  • Commonly used to measure preferences among brands and brand attributes


Rank order scaling1
Rank Order Scaling

Please rank the instructors listed below in order of preference. For the instructor you prefer the most, assign a “1”, assign a “2” to the instructor you prefer the 2nd most, assign a “3” to the instructor that you prefer 3rd most, and assign a “4” to the instructor that you prefer the least.


Constant sum scaling
Constant Sum Scaling

  • Respondents are asked to allocate a constant sum of units among a set of stimulus objects with respect to some criterion

  • Units allocated represent the importance attached to the objects.

  • Data obtained are interval in nature

  • Allows for fine discrimination among alternatives


Constant sum scaling1
Constant Sum Scaling

Listed below are 4 marketing professors, as well as 3 aspects that students typically find important. For each aspect, please assign a number that reflects how well you believe each instructor performs on the aspect. Higher numbers represent higher scores. The total of all the instructors’ scores on an aspect should equal 100.



Figure 10 3 a classification of non comparative rating scales
Figure 10. 3 A Classification of Non Comparative Rating Scales

Classifying Noncomparative Scaling Techniques

Noncomparative

Rating Scales

Continuous

Rating Scales

Itemized

Rating Scales

Semantic

Differential

Stapel

Likert


Continuous rating scale example
Continuous Rating Scale Example Scales

Very

Poor

Very

Good

X

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Method of summated ratings the likert scale
Method of Summated Ratings: ScalesThe Likert Scale

  • Extremely popular means for measuring attitudes.

  • Respondents indicate their own attitudes by checking how strongly they agree/disagree with statements.

  • Response alternatives:

    • “strongly agree”, “agree”, “uncertain”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”.

  • Generally use either a 5- or 7-point scale


Semantic differential scales
Semantic Differential Scales Scales

  • A series of numbered (usually seven-point) bipolar rating scales.

  • Bipolar adjectives (for example, “good” and “bad”), anchor both ends (or poles) of the scale.

  • A weight is assigned to each position on the rating scale.

    • Traditionally, scores are 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, or +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3.


Semantic differential scales for measuring attitudes toward tennis
Semantic Differential Scales for Measuring Attitudes Toward Tennis

Exciting ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : Calm

Interesting ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : Dull

Simple ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ Complex

Passive ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ Active


Stapel scales
Stapel Scales Tennis

  • Modern versions of the Stapel scale place a single adjective as a substitute for the semantic differential when it is difficult to create pairs of bipolar adjectives.

  • The advantage and disadvantages of a Stapel scale, as well as the results, are very similar to those for a semantic differential.

  • However, the Stapel scale tends to be easier to conduct and administer.


A stapel scale for measuring a store s image
A Stapel Scale Tennisfor Measuring a Store’s Image

Department

Store Name

+3

+2

+1

Wide Selection

-1

-2

-3


Graphic rating scales
Graphic Rating Scales Tennis

  • A graphic rating scale presents respondents with a graphic continuum.


Graphic rating scale stressing pictorial visual communications
Graphic Rating Scale Stressing Pictorial Visual Communications

3 2 1

Very Very

Good Poor


Figure 10 4 balanced and unbalanced scales

Balanced and Unbalanced Scales Communications

Figure 10.4 Balanced and Unbalanced Scales

Balanced Scale

Unbalanced Scale

Surfing the Internet is

____ Extremely Good

____ Very Good

____ Good

____ Bad

____ Very Bad

____ Extremely Bad

Surfing the Internet is

____ Extremely Good

____ Very Good

____ Good

____ Somewhat Good

____ Bad

____ Very Bad





Figure 10 6 scale evaluation
Figure 10.6 Scale Evaluation Communications

Scale Evaluation

Scale

Evaluation

Validity

Reliability

Content

Test-Retest

Internal

Consistency

Criterion

Alternative

Forms

Construct

Convergent

Validity

Discriminant

Validity

Nomological

Validity


Reliability
Reliability Communications

  • Extent to which a scale produces consistent results

  • Test-retest Reliability

    • Respondents are administered scales at 2 different times under nearly equivalent conditions

  • Alternative-form Reliability

    • 2 equivalent forms of a scale are constructed, then tested with the same respondents at 2 different times


Reliability1
Reliability Communications

  • Internal Consistency Reliability

    • The consistency with which each item represents the construct of interest

    • Used to assess the reliability of a summated scale

    • Split-half Reliability

      • Items constituting the scale divided into 2 halves, and resulting half scores are correlated

    • Coefficient alpha (most common test of reliability)

      • Average of all possible split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of the scale items


Validity
Validity Communications

  • Extent to which true differences among the objects are reflected on the characteristic being measured

  • Content Validity

    • A.k.a., face validity

    • Subjective, but systematic evaluation of the representativeness of the content of a scale for the measuring task at hand

  • Criterion Validity

    • Examines whether measurement scale performs as expected in relation to other variables selected as meaningful criteria

    • I.e., predicted and actual behavior should be similar


Construct validity
Construct Validity Communications

  • Addresses the question of what construct or characteristic the scale is actually measuring

  • Convergent Validity

    • Extent to which scale correlates positively with other measures of the same construct

  • Discriminant Validity

    • Extent to which a measure does not correlate with other constructs from which it is supposed to differ

  • Nomological Validity

    • Extent to which scale correlates in theoretically predicted ways with measures of different but related constructs


Relationship between reliability and validity
Relationship Between Reliability and Validity Communications

  • A scale can be reliable, but not valid

  • In order for a scale to valid, it must also be reliable.

  • In other words,

    • Reliability is a necessary but insufficient condition for Validity.


Reliability and validity on target
Reliability and Validity on Target Communications

Old Rifle New Rifle New Rifle Sunglare

Low Reliability High Reliability Reliable but Not Valid

(Target A) (Target B) (Target C)