Advertisement

Issues in the Assessment of Attitudes in Pre- and Marginally Literate Cultures

  • Brian F. Blake
  • Richard Heslin
  • D. Landis
  • O. Tzeng
Chapter
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 21)

Abstract

It has been proposed (e.g., Davidson & Thomson, 1980: Irvine & Carroll, 1980) that the reliability and validity of direct attitude scaling techniques may be problematic for a given culture, especially those that are pre- or marginally literate. Numerical measurement procedures such as direct ratio scaling or numerically anchored category scales demand at least some proficiency with the mathematical system assumed in the technique. Verbally anchored category scales and Likert-type formats not only assume that individuals can conceptualize stimuli on a priori specified dimensions, but also can be invalidated by inappropriate scale anchors.

Keywords

Direct Scaling Input Preference Small Scale Trial Transitive Subject Coordinate Matrice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradley, R., and Terry, M. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: 1. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 324–345.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Brislin, R. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis and J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980, pp. 389–44.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, J., and Arabie, P. Multidimensional scaling. Annual Review of Psychology. 1980, 3, 607–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coombs, C. A Theory of Data. New York: John Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  5. David, H. The Method of Paired Comparisons. New York: Hafner, 1963.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, A., and Thomson, E. Cross-cultural studies of attitudes and beliefs. In H. C. Triandis and R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 5. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. Delaine, B. A Sociological Approach to Coca Cultivation in the Chapare — Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia: Prodes, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. Garner, W., and Creelman, C. D. Problems and methods of psychological scaling. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1970.Google Scholar
  9. Green, P., and Rao, V. Applied Multidimensional Scaling: A Comparison of Approaches and Algorithms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. Irvine, S. H., and Carroll, W. K. Testing and assessment across cultures: Issues in methodology and theory. In H. C. Triandis and J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods. London: Griffin, 1948.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Kruskal, J., and Wish, M. Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. Luce, R. Individual Choice Behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1959.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: III. A test of significance for paired comparisons when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers, E., and Shoemaker, F. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  16. Schonemann, P. On metric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schonemann, P., and Wang, M. M. An individual differences model for multidimensional analysis of preference data. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 275–309.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Torgerson, W. S. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian F. Blake
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Richard Heslin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • D. Landis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • O. Tzeng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentCleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological ServicesPurdue UniversityW. LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentIndiana-Purdue University at IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations