Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:15:26.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Number of Categories in Rating Scales on Precision of Estimation of Scale Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. O. Ramsay
J. O. Ramsay*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The precision of scale value estimates using maximum likelihood estimation is examined for varying numbers of categories, varying discriminal dispersions and with and without category boundary estimation. It is concluded that this type of estimation is somewhat unsatisfactory if boundaries are estimated unless these are of specific interest. If they are not estimated, it is concluded that using seven or more categories provides very nearly as much precision of estimate as a corresponding continuous judgment task.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 513 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by National Research Council of Canada Grant A0320 to the author.

References

Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, Irene A. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, 1964, Washington: U. S. Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
Bendig, A. W. The reliability of self-ratings as a function of the amount of verbal anchoring and the number of categories on the scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 28, 38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D. and Jones, L. V. The Measurement and Prediction of Judgment and Choice, 1968, San Francisco: Holden-DayGoogle Scholar
Champney, H. and Marshall, H. Optimal refinement of the rating scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1939, 22, 323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. Rating scales and information recovery—how many scales and response categories to use?. Journal of Marketing, 1970, 34, 33–39Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. How to make meaning more meaningful. Contemporary Psychology, 1958, 3, 115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosier, C. I. A modification of the method of successive intervals. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffir, M. A. A comparative study of scales constructed by three psychophysical methods. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. and Tucker, L. R A maximum likelihood solution for the method of successive intervals allowing for unequal stimulus dispersions. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symonds, P. M. On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1924, 7, 456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and Methods of Scaling, 1958, New York: WileyGoogle Scholar