Abstract
Are ratings of any use in human-computer interaction and user studies at large? If ratings are of limited use, is there a better alternative for quantitative subjective assessment? Beyond the intrinsic shortcomings of human reporting, there are a number of supplementary limitations and fundamental methodological flaws associated with rating-based questionnaires --- i.e. questionnaires that ask participants to rate their level of agreement with a given statement such as a Likert item. While the effect of these pitfalls has been largely downplayed, recent findings from diverse areas of study question the reliability of using ratings. Rank-based questionnaires --- i.e. questionnaires that ask participants to rank two or more options --- appear as the evident alternative that not only eliminates the core limitations of ratings but also simplifies the use of sound methodologies that yield more reliable models of the underlying reported construct: user emotion, preference, or opinion. This paper solicits recent findings from various disciplines interlinked with psychometrics and offers a quick guide for the use, processing and analysis of rank-based questionnaires for the unique advantages they offer. The paper challenges the traditional state-of-practice in human-computer interaction and psychometrics directly contributing towards a paradigm shift in subjective reporting.
Highlights
Ratings are overrated!Reviewed by: Andreas Duenser, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia Eran Toch, Tel Aviv University, Israel Donald Glowinski, University of Geneva, Switzerland
The key research question within psychometrics and user studies is how to best approximate a user’s notion of a subjective construct, such as an experience, a cognitive state, an emotion, or a preference
We hope that this paper highlights the obvious fundamental issues of ratings as a subjective assessment tool and introduces ranks as the alternative reporting approach toward altering a dominant, yet falsified, community practice
Summary
Reviewed by: Andreas Duenser, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia Eran Toch, Tel Aviv University, Israel Donald Glowinski, University of Geneva, Switzerland. Are ratings of any use in human–computer interaction and user studies at large? Beyond the intrinsic shortcomings of human reporting, there are a number of supplementary limitations and fundamental methodological flaws associated with rating-based questionnaires – i.e., questionnaires that ask participants to rate their level of agreement with a given statement, such as a Likert item. Rank-based questionnaires – i.e., questionnaires that ask participants to rank two or more options – appear as the evident alternative that eliminates the core limitations of ratings and simplifies the use of sound methodologies that yield more reliable models of the underlying reported construct: user emotion, preference, or opinion. The paper challenges the traditional state-of-practice in human–computer interaction and psychometrics directly contributing toward a paradigm shift in subjective reporting
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
