Ch apter Ni ne

Measurement and Scaling:

Noncomparative Scaling

Techniques

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-1

 Ch apter O utl ine

1) Overview

2) Noncomparative Scaling Techniques

3) Continuous Rating Scale

4) Itemized Rating Scale

i. Likert Scale

ii. Semantic Differential Scale

iii. Stapel Scale

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-2

 Cha pter Ou tl ine
5) Noncomparative Itemized Rating Scale Decisions

i. Number of Scale Categories

ii. Balanced Vs. Unbalanced Scales

iii. Odd or Even Number of Categories

iv. Forced Vs. Non-forced Scales

v. Nature and Degree of Verbal Description

vi. Physical Form or Configuration

6) Multi-item Scales

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-3

 Cha pter Ou tl ine
7) Scale Evaluation
i. Measurement Accuracy
ii. Reliability
iii. Validity
iv. Relationship between Reliability and Validity
v. Generalizability Reliable? Valid?

8) Choosing a Scaling Technique Generalizable?

9) Mathematically Derived Scales

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-4

 Cha pter Ou tl ine

10) International Marketing Research

11) Ethics in Marketing Research

12) Summary

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-5

 Nonc ompa ra ti ve S cali ng
Te ch ni qu es

 Respondents evaluate only one object at a time, and for

this reason non-comparative scales are often referred to
as monadic scales.

 Non-comparative techniques consist of continuous and

itemized rating scales.

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-6

 Co nti nuous Rati ng S ca le
Respondents rate the objects by placing a mark at the appropriate position
on a line that runs from one extreme of the criterion variable to the other.
The form of the continuous scale may vary considerably.

How would you rate Sears as a department store?

Version 1
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Probably the best

Version 2
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Probably the best
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Version 3
Very bad Neither good Very good
nor bad
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Probably the best
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-7
 RATE: R api d A na lysi s a nd
Test ing En vir on me nt
A rel ativ el y new re sea rch too l, the perc ept ion analy zer, pr ovid es
con tin uou s mea sure me nt of “gu t rea ct ion .” A gr oup of up to 400
re spon de nts is pre sen te d wi th TV or ra dio spot s or adve rt is ing copy .
The measurin g de vic e con sists of a dia l that con ta in s a 100-poin t
ra nge . Ea ch pa rt ic ipa nt is giv en a dia l and instru cte d to con tin uously
re cord his or her re act ion to the mate ria l be in g te ste d .

As th e re spon den ts tu rn th e di als , the

in form ation is fed to a com pu ter , wh ich
tabu la tes secon d-by -sec ond re spon se
pr ofile s. As the res ult s are re corde d by
the comp uter, they are super im pos ed on
a vid eo scr een , enabli ng the res earch er
to vie w th e re spon de nts' score s
im med ia tel y. The res pon ses are also
stored in a per ma nent da ta file for use in
furt her analy sis. The re spon se score s
ca n be brok en dow n by ca teg orie s, such
as age, in com e, sex , or produ ct usage.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-8
 Itemi ze d Rati ng Sc ales

 The respondents are provided with a scale that has a

number or brief description associated with each
category.

 The categories are ordered in terms of scale position,

and the respondents are required to select the specified
category that best describes the object being rated.

 The commonly used itemized rating scales are the

Likert, semantic differential, and Stapel scales.

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-9

 Li kert S ca le
The Li ke rt sca le requires the respondents to indicate a degree of agreement or
disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus objects.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree nor agree
disagree

1. Sears sells high quality merchandise. 1 2X 3 4 5

2. Sears has poor in-store service. 1 2X 3 4 5

3. I like to shop at Sears. 1 2 3X 4 5

 The analysis can be conducted on an item-by-item basis (profile analysis), or a

total (summated) score can be calculated.

 When arriving at a total score, the categories assigned to the negative

statements by the respondents should be scored by reversing the scale.

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-10

 Se man ti c Di ffere nti al Sc al e
The seman tic diffe re nt ial is a seven-point rating scale with end
points associated with bipolar labels that have semantic meaning.
SEARS IS:
Powerful --:--:--:--:-X-:--:--: Weak
Unreliable --:--:--:--:--:-X-:--: Reliable
Modern --:--:--:--:--:--:-X-: Old-fashioned
 The negative adjective or phrase sometimes appears at the left
side of the scale and sometimes at the right.
 This controls the tendency of some respondents, particularly
those with very positive or very negative attitudes, to mark the
right- or left-hand sides without reading the labels.
 Individual items on a semantic differential scale may be scored
on either a -3 to +3 or a 1 to 7 scale.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-11
 A Seman ti c D if ferenti al Sca le f or Me asuri ng
Self - Conc ep ts, Person Conc ept s, and Product
Conce pts
1) Rugged :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Delicate

2) Excitable :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Calm

3) Uncomfortable :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Comfortable

4) Dominating :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Submissive

5) Thrifty :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Indulgent

6) Pleasant :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Unpleasant

7) Contemporary :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Obsolete

8) Organized :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Unorganized

9) Rational :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Emotional

10) Youthful :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Mature

© 2007 11) Formal

Prentice Hall :---:---:---:---:---:---:---: Informal 9-12
 St apel Sc al e
The St ap el scale is a unipolar rating scale with ten categories
numbered from -5 to +5, without a neutral point (zero). This scale
is usually presented vertically.
SEARS

+5 +5
+4 +4
+3 +3
+2 +2X
+1 +1
HIGH QUALITY POOR SERVICE
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4X -4
-5 -5
The data obtained by using a Stapel scale can be analyzed in the
same way as semantic differential data.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-13
 Basic Nonc omp ara ti ve S ca les
Table 9.1

Scal e Bas ic Ex ampl es Ad vantages Dis adv antages

Charac ter is tics

Continuous Place a mark on a Reaction to Easy to construct Scoring can be

Rating continuous line TV cumbersome
Scale commercials unless
computerized
Itemized Rating Scales

Likert Scale Degrees of Measurement Easy to construct, More

agreement on a 1 of attitudes administer, and time-consuming
(strongly disagree) understand
to 5 (strongly agree)
scale

Semantic Seven - point scale Brand, Versatile Controversy as

Differential with bipolar labels product, and to whether the
company data are interval
images

Stapel Unipolar ten - point Measurement Easy to construct, Confusing and

Scale scale, - 5 to +5, of attitudes administer over difficult to apply
witho ut a neutral and images telephone
point (zero)

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-14

 Summary of Itemized Scale Decisions
Table 9.2
1) N um ber of categ ories Although there is no single, optimal
number,
traditional guidelines suggest that there
should be between five and nine categories
2) Bal anced vs. unb ala nc ed In general, the scale should be balanced to
obtain objective data
3) O dd/even no. of cate gor ie s If a neutral or indifferent scale
response is
possible for at least some respondents,
an odd number of categories should be used
4) Fo rced vs. non- forced In situations where the respondents are
expected to have no opinion, the accuracy of
the data may be improved by a non-forced
scale
5) Ve rb al des crip tio n An argument can be made for labeling all or
many scale categories. The category
descriptions should be located as close to
the response categories as possible
6) Physi cal fo rm A number of options should be tried and the
best selected

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-15

 Bal anced a nd Unbalan ce d
Sca les
Fig. 9.1

Jovan Musk for Men is: Jovan Musk for Men is:
Extremely good Extremely good
Very good Very good
Good Good
Bad Somewhat good
Very bad Bad
Extremely bad Very bad

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-16

 Rati ng S ca le C onfig ura ti ons
Fig. 9.2

Cheer detergent is:

1) Very harsh --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Very gentle

2) Very harsh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very gentle

3) . Very harsh
. Cheer
.
. Neither harsh nor gentle
.
.
. Very gentle

4) ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Very Harsh Somewhat Neither harsh Somewhat Gentle Very
harsh Harsh nor gentle gentle gentle
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
5)

Very Neither harsh Very

harsh nor gentle gentle

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-17

 Som e Unique Ra ti ng Scale
Conf igura tio ns
Fig. 9.3
Thermometer Scale
Instructions: Please indicate how much you like McDonald’s hamburgers
by coloring in the thermometer. Start at the bottom and color up to the
temperature level that best indicates how strong your preference is.
Form:
Like very 100
much 75
50
25
Dislike 0
very much
Smiling Face Scale
Instructions: Please point to the face that shows how much you like the
Barbie Doll. If you do not like the Barbie Doll at all, you would point to Face
1. If you liked it very much, you would point to Face 5.

Form:

1 2 3 4 5
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-18
 Some Co mm on ly U sed Scales in
Ma rk eting
Table 9.3

CONSTRUCT SCALE DESCRIPTORS

Attitude Very Bad Bad Neither Bad Nor Good Good Very Good

Importance Not all All Important Not Important Neutral Important Very Important

Satisfaction Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Dissat Nor Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied

Purchase Intent Definitely will Not Buy Probably Will Not Buy Might or Might Not Buy Probably Will Buy Definitely Will Buy

Purchase Freq Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-19

 De velo pm ent of a Mul ti-i tem S ca le
Fig. 9.4
De vel op T he ory

Ge nerat e Ini tial Poo l of It em s: T heory , Sec ond ary Dat a, a nd

Qual it ative R esea rch

Sel ect a Red uc ed Set of It em s Based on Quali tat ive Jud geme nt

Collec t Dat a fr om a L arg e Pret est Sam ple

St atist ica l A nalysis

Dev elop Puri fi ed Scal e

Col lec t More Dat a fro m a Diff erent Sam ple

Eval uat e Scal e Rel iab il ity, Vali dity, and Generali zab ility

Fi na l Scal e
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-20
 Sca le E va lua ti on
Fig. 9.5
Scale Evaluation

Reliability Validity Generalizability

Test/ Alternative Internal

Content Criterion Construct
Retest Forms Consistency

Convergent Discriminant Nomological

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-21

 Mea su remen t Ac cu ra cy
The true sco re mo del provides a framework for
understanding the accuracy of measurement.

XO = XT + XS + XR

where

XO = the observed score or measurement

XT = the true score of the characteristic
XS = systematic error
XR = random error
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-22
 Pot ent ial So urces of Er ror on
Mea sure me nt
Fig. 9.6
1) Other relatively stable characteristics of the individual that influence
the test score, such as intelligence, social desirability, and
education.
2) Short-term or transient personal factors, such as health, emotions,
and fatigue.
3) Situational factors, such as the presence of other people, noise, and
distractions.
4) Sampling of items included in the scale: addition, deletion, or
changes in the scale items.
5) Lack of clarity of the scale, including the instructions or the items
themselves.
6) Mechanical factors, such as poor printing, overcrowding items in the
questionnaire, and poor design.
7) Administration of the scale, such as differences among interviewers.
8) Analysis factors, such as differences in scoring and statistical
analysis.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-23
 Rel iabi lity
 Rel iabi lit y can be defined as the extent to which
measures are free from random error, XR . If XR = 0,
the measure is perfectly reliable.
 In test -ret est rel iab il it y, respondents are
administered identical sets of scale items at two
different times and the degree of similarity between
the two measurements is determined.
 In al te rna tiv e- forms r eli ab il ity , two equivalent
forms of the scale are constructed and the same
respondents are measured at two different times,
with a different form being used each time.

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-24

 Rel iabi lity
 In ter nal co nsi stency rel ia bi li ty determines the
extent to which different parts of a summated scale are
consistent in what they indicate about the characteristic
being measured.
 In sp li t-ha lf r eli ab il ity , the items on the scale are
divided into two halves and the resulting half scores are
correlated.
 The co efficien t al pha, or Cronbach's alpha, is the
average of all possible split-half coefficients resulting
from different ways of splitting the scale items. This
coefficient varies from 0 to 1, and a value of 0.6 or less
generally indicates unsatisfactory internal consistency
reliability.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-25
 Va lidi ty
 The vali dity of a scale may be defined as the extent to
which differences in observed scale scores reflect true
differences among objects on the characteristic being
measured, rather than systematic or random error.
Perfect validity requires that there be no measurement
error (XO = XT, XR = 0, XS = 0).
 Co nten t va li dit y is a subjective but systematic
evaluation of how well the content of a scale represents
the measurement task at hand.
 Cr it eri on va lid it y reflects whether a scale performs as
expected in relation to other variables selected (criterion
variables) as meaningful criteria.

© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-26

 Va lidi ty
 Co nst ruct v al idi ty addresses the question of what
construct or characteristic the scale is, in fact,
measuring. Construct validity includes convergent,
discriminant, and nomological validity.
 Co nver gen t val idi ty is the extent to which the scale
correlates positively with other measures of the same
construct.
 Discr iminan t va li dit y is the extent to which a
measure does not correlate with other constructs from
which it is supposed to differ.
 Nomo logical val id ity is the extent to which the
scale correlates in theoretically predicted ways with
measures of different but related constructs.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-27
 Rel ati onsh ip Between Reli abili ty
and Va lidi ty
 If a measure is perfectly valid, it is also perfectly reliable.
In this case XO = XT , XR = 0, and XS = 0.
 If a measure is unreliable, it cannot be perfectly valid,
since at a minimum XO = XT + XR . Furthermore,
systematic error may also be present, i.e., XS ≠0. Thus,
unreliability implies invalidity.
 If a measure is perfectly reliable, it may or may not be
perfectly valid, because systematic error may still be
present (XO = XT + XS ).
 Reliability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
validity.
© 2007 Prentice Hall 9-28