Abstract
ABSTRACTThe relative sensitivities of four scaling methods were assessed in central location tests with untrained judges. The scales included category scales, line scales, magnitude estimation, and a hybrid of the line and category scales. Approximate parity was observed among category scales, line scales and the hybrid scale in their ability to differentiate small physical differences. Magnitude estimation was used as efficiently as the other methods by a college population, but less efficiently by a heterogeneous sample of consumers. Judges used the scales with greater accuracy as they became familiar with the range of products to be judged. In spite of relatively small physical differences, subjects used wide ranges of the scales, supporting the view that rating scales are relative, not absolute, measuring instruments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
