Skip to main content
  • 54k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel vermittelt folgende Lernziele: Die unterschiedlichen Vorgehensweisen bei der Bildung theoretischer Konzepte in der qualitativen Forschung und der Operationalisierung theoretischer Konzepte in der quantitativen Forschung kennen. Wissen, was man unter der Konzeptspezifikation versteht und wie man dabei vorgeht. Latente und manifeste Variablen voneinander abgrenzen können. Die vier Skalenniveaus definieren und an Beispielen erläutern können. Die Ratingskala als Antwortformat von der psychometrischen Skala als Messinstrument unterscheiden können. Die Messung theoretischer Konzepte mit Einzelindikatoren, psychometrischen Skalen und Indizes als drei zentralen Operationalisierungsvarianten in ihren Vor- und Nachteilen abwägen können.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34, 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahearn, E. P. (1997). The use of visual analog scales in mood disorders: A critical review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 31, 569–579.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1985a). Evaluating ratings on bidirectional scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1985b). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1987). Formulas for equating ratings on different scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 51–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1996). Rating scales and checklists: Evaluating behavior, personality, and attitudes. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1997). Psychological testing and assessment (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (1989). Confounding among measures of leniency and halo. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A. et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Athey, T. R., & McIntyre, R. M. (1987). Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: Levels-of-processing theory and social facilitation theory perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 567–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attneave, F. (1949). A method of graded dichotomies for the scaling of judgments. Psychological Review, 56, 334–340.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalon, L., Goldfracht, M., & Bech, P. (2010). „Do you think you suffer from depression?“ Reevaluating the use of a single item question for the screening of depression in older primary care patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25, 497–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E. (1980). Ein chemischer Index zur Überwachung der Wasserqualität von Fließgewässern (24. Aufl.). Frankfurt/Main: DGM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, L., & Blais, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of clinical rating scales and assessment in psychiatry and mental health (current clinical psychiatry). New York: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. O., Hardyck, C. D., & Petrinovich, L. F. (1966). Weak measurement vs. strong statistics: An empirical critique of S. S. Stevens’ proscriptions of statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26, 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, B. D., Kinicki, A. J., Denisi, A. S., & Horn, P. W. (1987). A new method for the statistical control of rating error in performance ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 583–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, M. A., & Raju, N. S. (2003). IRT-based assessments of rater effects in multiple-source feedback instruments. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Haws, K. L. (2011). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (Vol. 3). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. E., & Allen, N. L. (1992). Chapter 6. Interpreting scales through scale anchoring. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 17, 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J. (1977). Behavioral expectation scales versus summated ratings: A fairer comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 422–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J., & Smith, P. C. (1981). A clarification of some issues regarding the development and use of behaviorally anchored ratings scales (BARS). Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 458–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J., & Walter, C. S. (1977). Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierhoff, H. W. (1996). Neue Erhebungsmethoden. In E. Erdfelder, R. Mausfeld & T. Meiser (Hrsg.), Handbuch Quantitative Methoden (S. 59–70). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bintig, A. (1980). The efficiency of various estimations of reliability of rating-scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 619–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunt, A. (1983). Development of a Thurstone scale for measuring attitudes toward adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 34, 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckenholt, U. (2001). Hierarchical modeling of paired comparison data. Psychological Methods, 6, 49–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böckenholt, U. (2004). Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psychological Methods, 9, 453–465.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bongers, D. & Rehm, G. (1973). Kontaktwunsch und Kontaktwirklichkeit von Bewohnern einer Siedlung (unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit). Universität Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I. & Staufenbiel, T. (2007). Lehrbuch Theorien und Methoden der Skalierung (4. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I., Müller, M. & Staufenbiel, T. (1990). Ein empirischer Vergleich von fünf Standard-Verfahren zur eindimensionalen Skalierung. Archiv für Psychologie, 142, 25–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C. (1975). Effects of instructions to avoid halo error on reliability and validity of performance evaluation ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 556–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C. (1986). Behavior-based rating scales. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment: Methods and applications (pp. 100–120). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J. & Lienert, G. A. (2008). Kurzgefasste Statistik für die klinische Forschung (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., Lienert, G. A. & Boehnke, K. (2008). Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik (3. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J. & Schuster, C. (2010). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (Lehrbuch mit Online-Materialien) (7. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. I. The method of paired comparison. Biometrika, 39, 324–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, L. W. (1978). Measuring of a measurement: Empirical investigation of the semantic differential. Probleme und Ergebnisse der Psychologie, 66, 71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 290–314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bühner, M. (2021). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (4., korr. und erw. Aufl.). München: Pearson Studium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Hellervik, L. V. (1973). The development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(1), 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, L., Sendra, J. M., Bayarri, S., Izquierdo, L., & Tárrega, A. (2008). Thurstonian scales obtained by transformation of beta distributions. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 407–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, B. B., & Puhan, B. N. (1980). A Thurstone scale for measuring attitude towards sex. Indian Psychological Review, 19(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chignell, M. H., & Pattey, B. W. (1987). Unidimensional scaling with efficient ranking methods. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 304–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, W., & Stvilia, B. (2015). Web credibility assessment: Conceptualization, operationalization, variability, and models. Advances in Information Sciences, 66(12), 2399–2414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. A. (1977). A method of scaling with incomplete pair-comparison data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 603–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Development and application of a new approach to testing the bipolarity of semantic differential. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, E., & Maul, T. (1981). Introduction to experimental psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1970). Mathematical psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., & Singer, E. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales. A web experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawshaw, L. (2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distraction by a thousand definitions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 263–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronkhite, G. (1976). Effects of rater-concept-scale interactions and use of different factoring procedures upon evaluative factor structure. Human Communication Research, 2, 316–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C. (1992). Subjektives Wohlbefinden junger Erwachsener: Theoretische und empirische Analysen der Struktur und Stabilität. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 13, 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, H. A. (1963). The method of paired comparison. London: Griffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawis, R. V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 481–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCotiis, T. A. (1977). An analysis of the external validity and applied relevance of three rating formats. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 247–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCotiis, T. A. (1978). A critique and suggested revision of behaviorally anchored rating scales developmental procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 681–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (2005). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: A comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbacher, H. & Zieschank, R. (2010). Wohlfahrtsmessung in Deutschland. Ein Vorschlag für einen neuen Wohlfahrtsindex. Statusbericht zum Forschungsprojekt FKZ 3707 11 101/01. Zeitreihenrechnung zu Wohlfahrtsindikatoren. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/3902.pdf

  • Ding, Z., & Ng, F. (2008). A new way of developing semantic differential scales with personal construct theory. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 1213–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, J. (1988). Kognition und Präferenz: Die Bedeutung des Halo-Effektes für multiattributive Einstellungsmodelle. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 19, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N. (2005). Für Evaluation und gegen Evaluitis. Warum und wie Lehrevaluation an deutschen Hochschulen verbessert werden sollte. In B. Berendt, H.-P. Voss & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (S. 1–22). Berlin: Raabe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N. (2013). Zur Operationalisierung von Geschlecht im Fragebogen: Probleme und Lösungsansätze aus Sicht von Mess-, Umfrage-, Gender- und Queer-Theorie. Gender, 2, 94–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G. A., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. L., & Kilpatrick, F. P. (1948). A technique for the construction of attitude scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 374–384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eiser, J. R., & Ströbe, W. (1972). Categorization and social judgment. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. (2013). Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. Zahlen und Fakten zum kirchlichen Leben. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.ekd.de/ekd_de/ds_doc/zahlen_und_fakten_2013.pdf

  • Evans, R. H. (1980). The upgraded semantic differential: A further test. Journal of the Market Research Society, 22(2), 143–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. J., & Rueda, S. M. (2010). The Hitmann study. Violent video game exposure effects on aggressive behavior, hostile feelings, and depression. European Psychologist, 15, 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, A., & Kayande, U. (2005). How fine is C-OAR-SE? A generalizability theory perspective on Rossiter’s procedure. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finstuen, K. (1977). Use of Osgood’s semantic differential. Psychological Reports, 41, 1219–1222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flade, A. (1978). Die Beurteilung umweltpsychologischer Konzepte mit einem konzeptspezifischen und einem universellen semantischen Differential. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 25, 367–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, L. R. (1993). Do standard scales work in older samples? Marketing Letters, 4, 127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, D. & Schlund, W. (2000). Eine neue Lösung des alten Skalenproblems. planung&analyse, 2000, 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. A., & Cornelius III, E. T. (1976). Effect of rater participation on scale construction on the psychometric characteristics of two ratingscale formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 210–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H. H., Friedman, L. W., & Gluck, B. (1988). The effects of scale-checking styles on responses to a semantic differential scale. Journal of the Market Research Society, 30, 477–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaito, J. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 564–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galovski, T. E., Malta, L. S., & Blanchard, E. B. (2006). Road rage: Assessment and treatment of the angry, aggressive driver. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 898–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, R. (1990). A comparison of three forms of the semantic differential. Marketing Bulletin, 1, 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R., & Hake, H. W. (1951). The amount of information in absolute judgments. Psychological Review, 58, 446–459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gescheider, G. A. (1988). Psychophysical scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 169–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 23–38. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://sites.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/pdf/glaser.pdf

  • Gluth, S., Ebner, N. C., & Schmiedek, F. (2010). Attitudes toward younger and older adults: The German Aging Semantic Differential. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, E., Tan, J., & Morrow-Howell, N. (2010). Assessment of the refined Aging Semantic Differential: Recommendations for enhancing validity. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53, 304–318.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstadt, M. S., & Magid, S. (1977). When Thurstone and Likert agree – A confounding of methodologies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 811–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granberg-Rademacker, J. S. (2010). An algorithm for converting ordinal scale measurement data to interval/ratio scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 74–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., Sauser, W. I., Fagg, J. N., & Champion, C. H. (1981). Shortcut methods for deriving Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 761–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1938). The computation of psychological values from judgments in absolute categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1950). The basis of scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction. Studies in social psychology in World War II (Vol. 4, pp. 60–90). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, D. J. (1996). Statistics and the theory of measurement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 159, 445–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauenstein, N. M. A., Brown, R. D., & Sinclair, A. L. (2010). BARS and those mysterious, missing middle anchors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 663–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henss, R. (1989). Zur Vergleichbarkeit von Ratingskalen unterschiedlicher Kategorienzahl. Psychologische Beiträge, 31, 264–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelfarb, S. (1993). The measurement of attitudes. In A. H. Eagly, & S. Chaiken (Eds.), Psychology of attitudes (pp. 23–88). Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofacker, C. F. (1984). Categorical judgment scaling with ordinal assumptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 91–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstätter, P. R. (1957). Psychologie. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstätter, P. R. (1963). Einführung in die Sozialpsychologie. Stuttgart: Kröner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstätter, P. R. (1977). Persönlichkeitsforschung. Stuttgart: Kröner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, L. M., Inouye, D., & Seigelmann, E. Y. (1979). On avaraging judges’ ratings to increase their correlation with an external criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 453–458.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, W. T. (2000). Rater bias in psychological research: When is it a problem and what can we do about it? Psychological Methods, 5, 64–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Bias in participant ratings of psychotherapy process: An initial generalizability study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, W. T., & Kerns, M.-D. (1999). Magnitude and moderators of bias in observer ratings: A meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 403–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, R. B., & Buhyoff, G. J. (1981). On the Law of Comparative Judgement: Scaling with intransitive observers and multidimensional stimuli. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1083–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igou, E. R., Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2002). Making sense of standardized survey questions: The influence of reference periods and their repetition. Communication Monographs, 69, 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iturregui-Gallardo, G., & Méndez-Ulrich, J. L. (2020). Towards the creation of a Tactile version of the Self-Assessment Manikin (T-SAM) for the emotional assessment of visually impaired people. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67, 657–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, R. (1998). Konstruktion einer Ratingskala mit Smilies als symbolische Marken. Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, R. S. & Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologische Diagnostik. (2. Aufl.). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, S. (2004) Likert scales: How to (ab)use them? Medical Education, 38, 1217–1218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. M., & Vidulich, R. N. (1956). Experimental manipulation of the halo-effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 130–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V. (1959). Some invariant findings under the method of successive intervalls. The American Journal of Psychology, 72, 210–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., & Thurstone, L. L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. B. (1971). Minimizing order effects in the semantic differential. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, J. S., Bernardin, H. J., Villanova, P., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1036–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J., & Wagner-Steh, K. (2005). A Guttman scale for empirical prediction of level of domestic violence. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., Hovland, C. I., Schwartz, M., & Abelson, R. P. (1955). The influence of judges attitudes in three modes of attitude scaling. Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, M. G. (1955). Further contributions to the theory of paired comparison. Biometrics, 11, 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, J. (2009). Der Mythos vom globalen Dorf. Zur räumlichen Differenzierung von Globalisierungsprozessen. In J. Kessler & C. Steiner (Hrsg.), Facetten der Globalisierung: Zwischen Ökonomie, Politik und Kultur (S. 28–79). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. M., Rosopa, P. J., & Minium, E. W. (2010). Statistical reasoning in the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingstrom, P. O., & Bass, A. R. (1981). A critical analysis of studies comparing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) and other rating formats. Personnel Psychology, 34, 263–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., & Bannister, B. D. (1988). A test of the measurement assumptions underlying Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., Bannister, B. D., Hom, P. W., & Denisi, A. S. (1985). Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales vs. Summated Rating Scales: Psychometric properties and susceptibility to rating bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 535–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C. (1989). Untersuchungen zur Robustheit von Zuschreibungs-mal-Bewertungsmodellen: Die Bedeutung von Halo-Effekten und Dominanz. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 20, 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C. & Schmeling, A. (1990). Sind Halo-Fehler Flüchtigkeitsfehler? Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 37, 594–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., Wallace, S., & Dunn–Rankin, P. (1998). Accuracy of Kendall’s chi-square approximation to circular triad distributions. Psychometrica, 63, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korman, A. K. (1971). Industrial and organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, P. F. M. (2008). Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes. Medical Care, 46, 357–365.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (2006a). Foundations of measurement volume II: Geometrical, threshold, and probabilistic representations. Mineola: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (2006b). Foundations of measurements volume I: Additive and polynomial representations. Mineola: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D., & Hoffmeyer–Zlotnik, J. H. P. (2009). Bipolar vs. unipolar scale format in fully vs. endpoint verbalized scale. Paper presented at the Cognition in Survey Research, 3rd Conference of the European Survey Research Association. Warschau, 29th June – 3rd July, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey, H. (2006). Qualität und Evaluation im System Hochschule. In R. Stockmann (Hrsg.), Evaluationsforschung: Grundlagen ausgewählter Forschungsfelder (3. Aufl., S. 234–259). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey, H., Roose, J. & Strübing, J. (2016). Empirische Sozialforschung: Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenausweitung: Modelle und Methoden der Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung (13. Aufl.). Stuttgart: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2006). Designing great questionnaires: Insights from psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating error in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. (2009). Is Schwartz’s Value Survey an interval scale, and does it really matter? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonhart, R. (2009). Lehrbuch Statistik. Einstieg und Vertiefung (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Wang, E., & Zhang, F. (2002). The multitrait-multirater approach to analyzing rating biases. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34, 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 5–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann, D. F., & Brigham, T. A. (2003). A Guttman scale for assessing condom use skills among college students. AIDS and Behavior, 7, 23–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohaus, D. (1997). Reihenfolgeeffekte in der Eindrucksbildung. Eine differenzierte Untersuchung verschiedener Meßzeiträume. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 28, 298–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Science, 4, 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lütters, H. (2008). Serious fun in market research: The Sniper Scale. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 25, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., Maier, M., Maurer, M., Reinemann, C., & Meyer, V. (Eds.). (2009). Real-time response measurement in the social sciences: Methodological perspectives and applications. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., Maurer, M., Reinemann, C., & Faas, T. (2006). Reliability and validity of real-time response measurement: A comparison of two studies of a televised debate in Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, I. T., Phillips, J. L., & Thompson, E. G. (1979). An examination of methodological issues relevant to the use and interpretation of the semantic differential. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, B. & Schuler, H. (2001). Leistungsbeurteilung. In H. Schuler (Hrsg.), Lehrbuch der Personalpsychologie (S. 397–433). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari, L. (2005). The problem of foundations of measurement. Measurement, 38, 259–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2000). The measurement of personal values in survey research. A test of alternative rating procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, B., Boldy, D., Lewin, G., & McCormack, G. R. (2011). Screening for depression among older adults referred to home care services: A single-item depression screener vs. the Geriatric Depression Scale. Home Health Care Management and Practice, 23, 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, H. M., Horne, D. J., & Sheather, S. (1988). Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychological Medicine, 18, 1007–1019.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michell, J. (1986). Measurement scales and statistics: A clash of paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 398–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michell, J. (2005). The logic of measurement: A realistic overview. Measurement, 38, 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosier, C. J. (1941). A psychometric study of meaning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mou, Y., Shi, C., Shen, T., & Xu, K. (2020). A systematic review of the personality of robot: Mapping its conceptualization, operationalization, contextualization and effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36, 591–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount, M. K., Sytsma, M. R., Hazucha, J. F., & Holt, K. E. (1997). Rater-ratee race effects in developmental performance rating of managers. Personnel Psychology, 50, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakami, T., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2003). Three-mode models and individual differences in semantic differential data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 247–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2003). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 386–422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2004). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part II. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 189–227.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2010). Social research methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Bosten: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, T. (1931). An experiment designed to test the validity of a rating technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 279–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S. E., & Arnold, J. (1989). The effect of response format on ratings of teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederée, R. & Mausfeld, R. (1996a). Das Bedeutsamkeitsproblem in der Statistik. In E. Erdfelder, R. Mausfeld & T. Meiser (Hrsg.), Handbuch Quantitative Methoden (S. 399–410). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederée, R. & Mausfeld, R. (1996b). Skalenniveau, Invarianz und „Bedeutsamkeit“. In E. Erdfelder, R. Mausfeld & T. Meiser (Hrsg.), Handbuch Quantitative Methoden (S. 385–398). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H.-H. (2002). Globale Wohlfahrtsmaße als Instrumente der Wohlfahrtsmessung und Sozialberichterstattung: Funktionen, Ansätze und Probleme. In W. Glatzer, R. Habich & K. U. Mayer (Hrsg.), Sozialer Wandel und Gesellschaftliche Dauerbeobachtung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Zapf (S. 317–336). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, K. & Reinhardt, K. (2011). Kompetenzmanagement in der Praxis: Mitarbeiterkompetenzen systematisch identifizieren, nutzen und entwickeln (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofir, C., Reddy, S. K., & Bechtel, G. G. (1987). Are semantic response scales equivalent? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 21–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2006). Bullies and victims: A challenge for schools. In J. R. Lutzker (Ed.), Preventing violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 147–165). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, B. (1983). Grundlagen des Messens. In H. Feger & J. Bredenkamp (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Themenbereich B, Serie I Forschungsmethoden der Psychologie, Bd. 3: Messen und Testen (S. 136–180). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, D. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A. (1963). Range-frequency compromise in judgment. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 77, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepels, W. (2007). Market Intelligence: Moderne Marktforschung für Praktiker: Auswahlverfahren, Datenerhebung, Datenauswertung, Praxisanwendung, Marktprognose. Düsseldorf: Publics Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perloff, J. M., & Persons, J. B. (1988). Biases resulting from the use of indexes: An application to attributional style and depression. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 95–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöllmann, A. (2013). Intercultural capital: Toward the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical investigation of a rising marker of sociocultural distinction. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013486117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1998). The Computer Understanding and Experience Scale: A self-report measure of computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rambo, W. W. (1963). The distribution of successive interval judgments of attitude statements: A note. Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 251–254.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, J. M., & Andreu, J. M. (2009). The main sympthoms of the AHA-syndrome: Relationships between anger, hostility and aggression on a normal population. In S. Bhave, & S. Saini (Eds.), The AHA-syndrome and cardiovascular diseases 2009 (pp. 16–29). New Delhi: Anamaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. L. (1989). Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 167–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reips, U. D., & Funke, F. (2008). Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 699–704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reinemann, C., Maier, J., Faas, T. & Maurer, M. (2005). Reliabilität und Validität von RTR-Messungen. Ein Vergleich zweier Studien zur zweiten Fernsehdebatte im Bundestagswahlkampf 2002. Publizistik, 50, 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Marriage and Family, 26, 188–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 211–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B. (1978). Empirische Studie zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen für die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 9, 222–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B. (2007). Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: Sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data. Project Report. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/rohrmann-vqs-report.pdf

  • Rohrmann, B. (2015). Designing verbalized rating scales: Sociolinguistic concepts and psychometric finding from three cross-cultural projects. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/vqs-projects.pdf

  • Rohwer, G. & Pötter, U. (2002). Methoden sozialwissenschaftlicher Datenkonstruktion. Weinheim: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskam, E. E. (1996). Latent-Trait Modelle. In E. Erdfelder, R. Mausfeld & T. Meiser (Hrsg.), Handbuch Quantitative Methoden (S. 431–458). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2010). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, P. (2011). Skalenhandbuch Kommunikationswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie Testkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozeboom, W. W., & Jones, L. V. (1956). The validity of the successive intervals method of psychometric scaling. Psychometrika, 21, 165–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saal, F. E., Downey, R. G., & Lahey, M. A. (1980). Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 413–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saal, F. E., & Landy, F. J. (1977). The Mixed Standard Rating Scale: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. (1991). Rater-ratee race effects on performance evaluation: Challenging meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 873–877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, T. (1994). Psychological scaling of the asymmetry observed in comparative judgement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuch, E. K. (1961). Sozialprestige und soziale Schichtung. In D. W. Glass & R. König (Hrsg.), Soziale Schichtung und soziale Mobilität. Sonderheft 5 der „Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie“ (S. 65–103). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuring, B. (1991). Primacy-Effekte, ein Ermündungseffekt? Neue Aspekte eines alten Phänomens. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 22, 270–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeisser, D. R., Bente, G. & Isenbart, J. (2004). Am Puls des Geschehens. Die integrierte Rezeptionsprozessanalyse. Zum Mehrwert rezeptionsbegleitender Untersuchungsmethoden in der Werbewirkungsforschung. Planung und Analyse, 2004, 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, F. M., Erben, J., Altzschner, R.-S., Kockler, T., Petzold, S. & Satzl, I. (2011). Die Übungssequenz macht den Meister …? Eine experimentelle Studie zu Kontext-Effekten von Übungsstimuli bei Real-Time Response Messungen. In M. Suckfüll, H. Schramm & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Rezeption und Wirkung in zeitlicher Perspektive (S. 253–270). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, R., Hill, P. B. & Esser, E. (2018). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (11. Aufl.). München: DeGruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulenberg, S. E., & Melton, A. M. (2007). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Computer Understanding and Experience Scale. Psychological Reports, 100, 1263–1269.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, D. P., Heneman, H. G., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1975). Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. A review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 28, 549–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2008). Self-Reports: How the questions shape the answers. In R. H. Fazio, & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Attitudes: Their structure, function, and consequences (pp. 49–67). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H.-P., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales. Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 127–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.) (1996). Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Wänke, M., Sedlmeier, P., & Betsch, T. (2002). Experiential and contextual heuristics in frequency judgement: Ease of recall and response scales. In P. Sedlmeier, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Etc.: Frequency processing and cognition (pp. 89–108). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Storey, K. (2011). Cumulative abuse: Do things add up? An evaluation of the conceptualization, operationalization, and methodological approaches in the study of the phenomenon of cumulative abuse. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, Z., & Shirom, A. (1980). New Issues in the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales: Level of analysis, the effects of incident frequency, and external validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 517–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment. Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, T. H., & Tashchian, A. (2003). Effects of sex on raters’ accountability. Psychological Reports, 92, 693–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sixtl, F. (1967). Meßmethoden der Psychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011). Haushaltsbefragung auf Stichprobenbasis zum Zensus 2011. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.zensus2011.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Aufsaetze_Archiv/2010_%20Destatis_Haushaltebefragung_beim_Zensus_2011.pdf

  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyer, R. & Eid, M. (2001). Messen und Testen (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stine, W. W. (1989). Meaningful inference: The role of measurement in statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Ash, M. G., & Sturm, T. (2007). Asking questions: Measurement in the social sciences. In M. G. Ash, & T. Sturm (Eds.) Psychology’s territories: Historical and contemporary perspectives from different disciplines (pp. 225–250). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahan, R. F. (1980). More on averaging judges’ ratings: Determining the most reliable composite. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 587–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subkoviak, M. J. (1974). Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: The effect on non-normality in Thurstone’s comparative judgment model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 829–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P., Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., & Tversky, A. (2006). Foundations of measurement volume III: Representation, axiomatization, and invariance. Mineola: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. B., Haefele, E., Thompson, P., & O’Donoghue, C. (1970). Rating scales as measures of clinical judgment II: The reliability of example-anchored scales und conditions of rater heterogeneity and divergent behavior sampling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 301–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., Palmer, J. K., & Feldman, J. M. (2009). Examination and measurement of halo via curvilinear regression: A new approach to halo. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 350–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement of attitudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trommsdorff, V. (1975). Die Messung von Produktimages für das Marketing. Grundlagen und Operationalisierung. Köln: Heymanns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Joanis, C., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). A comparison of three methods of performance appraisal with regard to goal properties, goal perception, and ratee satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 25, 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upmeyer, A. (1985). Soziale Urteilsbildung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upshaw, H. S. (1962). Own attitude as an anchor in equal appearing intervals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 85–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ven, A. van der. (1980). Einführung in die Skalierung. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade Savage, C., & Ehrlich, P. (Eds.). (1991). Philosophical and foundational issues in measurement theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). Race effects in performance evaluations: Controlling for ability, education, and experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 897–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wänke, M., & Fiedler, K. (2007). What is said and what is meant: Conversational implicatures in natural conversations, research settings, media, and advertising. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 223–255). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waxweiler, R. (1980). Psychotherapie im Strafvollzug. Eine empirische Erfolgsuntersuchung am Beispiel der sozialtherapeutischen Abteilung in einer Justizvollzugsanstalt. Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, M. G. (1994). Kognitive Psychologie (3. Aufl.). München: Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C. P., Dyrbye, L. N., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2009). Single item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are useful for assessing burnout in medical professionals. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24, 1318–1321.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Westermann, R. (1985). Empirical tests of scale type for individual ratings. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health, 13, 227–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, M. A. & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, E. W. (2004). Identifying rater effects using latent trait models. Psychology Science, 46, 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., & Leung, S.-O. (2017). Can Likert scales be treated as interval scales? – A simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43, 527–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. K., & Thiessen, D. D. (1991). Washing, drying, and anointing in adult humans (Homo sapiens): Commonalities with grooming sequences in rodents. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 105, 340–344.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J. H., Albaum, G., & Swenson, M. (2003). Is a central tendency error inherent in the use of semantic differential scales in different cultures? International Journal of Market Research, 45, 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakour, M. J. (1994). Measuring career-development volunteerism. Guttman scale analysis using Red Cross volunteers. Journal of Social Service Research, 19, 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 34, 390–400.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Döring .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Döring, N. (2023). Operationalisierung. In: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-64761-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-64762-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics