Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new measurement procedure for attitudinal research. Analysis of its psychometric and informational properties

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since measurement errors have strong effects in all relationships (statistical or otherwise) studied, there is an increasing interest in the data quality, which is the major justification for this research.

This paper aims to present a new measurement procedure, the letter scale, which avoids many of the problems connected with the response modalities traditionally used in attitudinal research, especially the ordinal categorical scales.

This paper analyzes the error composition of the scores obtained with this new measurement procedure. The validity of the procedure is also analyzed and the observed variance is assessed to determine which part of the observed variance is “valid”, which part is random error (attenuating relationships) and which is correlated error (magnifying relationships). Structural equation models will be used to provide estimates of the measurement quality: (i) Reliability, (ii) Construct validity, method effect and residual variance.

In addition, this letter scale is evaluated under another different perspective, Information Theory measures are also used to assess the amount of information transmitted.

The relative merits of this new measurement procedure as opposed to other common response modalities will be discussed in both cases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alwin, D. F. (1989). Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data.Quality & Quantity 23: 277–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F. M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: a structural model approach.Public Opinion Quarterly 48: 409–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attneave, F. (1959).Applications of Information Theory to Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C. and Noma, E. (1978).Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batista-Foguet, J. and Saris, W. E. (1988). Two standards in an experiment with non-metric stimuli. In W. E. Saris (ed.),Variation in Response Behavior: a Source of Measurement Error. Sociometric Research Foundation.

  • Batista-Foguet, J. M., Saris, W. E. and Tort-Martorell, X. (1990). Design of experimental studies for measurement and evaluation of the determinants of job satisfaction.Social Indicators Research 22: 32–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzecri, J. P. (1973). L'Analyse des données: L'analyse des Correspondances. (Tome 2). Paris, Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, H. M. (1964).Causal Inferences from Non Experimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrnsted, G. W. and Borgatta, E. F. (1981).Social Measurement: Current Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989).Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A. (1983).On the Robustness of LISREL against Small Sample Sizes in Factor Analysis Models and Non-Normality. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruinsma, C., Saris, W. E. and Gallhofer, I. N. (1980). A study of systematic errors in survey research: the effect of other people's opinions. In Middendorp, C. P. (eds.),Proceedings of the Dutch Sociometric Society Congress.

  • Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod data.Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clog, C. C. (1981). New developments in latent structure analysis. In D. J. Jackson and E. F. Borgatta (eds.),Factor Analysis and Measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, E. P. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review.Journal of Marketing Research 17: 407–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika 16: 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, D. W. (1970). Magnitude estimations and category judgments of brightness and brightness intervals: a two state interpretation.Journal of Experimental Psychology 83: 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1975). Hierarchical models for significance tests in multivariate contingency and tables,Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1976). Analyzing contingency tables with linear flow graphs: D Systems. In D. R. Heise (ed.)Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1980). Contingency tables analysis: Proportions and flow graphs. In J. Alt (ed.), Advances in Quantitative Analysis.Quality and Quantity 1: 17–155.

  • Ferligoj, A. (1989). International conference on social sciences methodology,Quality and Quantity 23: 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1960). Rating scales. Discriminability and information transmission.Psychological Review 67: 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1974). Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Concepts. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gescheider, G. A. (1984). Psychophysics: Methods and Theory. Hillsdale, N. J. Lawrence Erlbaum (2nd ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. H. and Tomko, D. L. (1972). The relation between category and magnitude estimates of tactile intensity.Perception and Psychophysics 12: 135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1972) Modified multiple regression approach to the analysis of dichotomous variables.American Sociological Review 37: 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1976) The relationship between modified and usual multiple regression approaches to the analysis of dichotomous variables. In D. R. Heise (ed.),Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1979). Multiplicative models for the analysis of occupational mobility tables and other kinds of cross-classification tables.Amer. J. Soc. 84: 804–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J., Kreff, G. G. and Hermkens, P. L. J. (1988). Multilevel models for factorial surveys. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Sciences Methodology. Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia: 30 May-3 June.

  • Jacoby, J. and Matel, M. S. (1971). Three point scales are good enough.Journal of Marketing Research 8: 495–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of congeneric tests.Psychometrika 36: 109–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1983).LISREL VI: A General Computer Program for Estimation for Linear Structural Equation Systems by Maximum Likelihood Methods. Uppsala: Department of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1987).LISREL VII: User's guide. Uppsala: Department of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: a theory of job satisfaction.American Sociological Review 42: 124–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Költringer R. (1989) Analysis of multitrait multimethod matrices. In W. W. Saris (ed.),Seminar on International Comparative Research. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H. et al. (1972). A theory of magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching.Journal of Mathematical Psychology 9: 168–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1986).Information theory. Structural Models for Qualitative Data. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimising goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psychometrika 29: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Henry, N. W. (1968).Latent Structure Analysis. Boston: Houghton & Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebart, L., Morineau, A. and Fenelon, J. P. (1982).Traitement des données statistiques. Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. (1981).Magnitude Scaling. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., Tanenhaus, J., Cross, D., Tursky, B., Foley, M. A. and Foley, H. (1976). The calibration and cross-modal validation of ratio scales of political opinion in survey research.Social Science Research 19: 325–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E. (1974).Sensory Processes: the New Psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. S. (1973). The effects of scaling on the correlation coefficient: a test of validity.Journal of Marketing Research 10: 316–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. S. (1978). Effects of scaling on the correlation coefficient: additional considerations.Journal of Marketing Research 15: 304–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, F. and Capecchi, V. (1975). The role of entropy in nominal classification. In Blalock, H. M., Aganbegian, A., Borodkin, E. M., Boudon, R. and V. Capecchi (eds.),Quantitative Sociology. International Perspective on Mathematical and Statistics Modelling. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. G. (1972) Regression with discrete dependent variables: the effect on R.Journal of Marketing Research 9: 338–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. (1978). Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables.Psychometrika 43: 551–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. (1981). Some categorical response models with continuous latent variables. In K. G. Joreskog and H. Wold (eds.),Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure and Prediction. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, U. (1979). On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations.Multivariate Behavioral Research 14: 485–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, B. (1982). The theoretical and empirical study of scale properties of magnitude estimation and category rating scales. In B. Wegener (ed.),Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A. (1982). Category rating: still more contextual effects. In B. Wegener (ed.),Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. E. (1974). Behavioral diversity in ten species of human primates.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 87(5): 930–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices.Journal of Marketing Research 16: 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petescon, R. A. and Sharma, S. (1977). A note of information content of rating scales.Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, 324–326.

  • Pijper, W. M. and Saris, W. E. (1986).The Formulation of Interviews Using the Program INTERV. Amsterdam: SRF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. C. (1989).Bias in Quantifying Judgements. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quera, V. (1986).Micro-análisis de la conducta interactiva: Una aplicación de la interacción materno-filial in Chimpances. Unpublished Ph.d. Dissertation. University of Barcelona.

  • Rindskopf, D. (1984). Structural equation models: empirical identification, Heywood cases, and related problems.Sociological Methods & Research 13: 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E. (1982). Different questions, different variables. In Fornell (ed.)Second Generation Multivariate Analysis. Hillsdale, N. J.: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E. (1988). How general is solution? In W. E. Saris (ed.).Variation in Response Functions: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E. (ed.). (1988).Variation in Response Behavior: A Source of Measurement Error. Sociometric Research Foundation.

  • Saris, W. E. (1989).Continuous Scales in the Social Sciences: An Attractive Possibility. University of Amsterdam. Methodology Department Political Science Faculty.

  • Saris, W. E. Bruinsma, C., Schoots, W. and Vermeulen, C. (1977). The use of magnitude estimation in large scale survey research.Mens en Matschapp, 52: 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E. Neijens, P. an Doorn, L. V. (1980). Scaling social sciences variables by multimodality matching.Kwantitatieve Methoden 2: 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E. and Pijper, M. (1986). Computer assisted interviewing using home computers.Elsevier, European Research 4: 144–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E., Putte, B. V., Maas, K. and Seip, H. (1988). Variation in response functions: observed and created. In W. E. Saris (ed.),Variation in Response Functions: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, J. O. (1973). The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values.Psychometrika 37: 513–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. and Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices.Applied Psychological Measurement 10: 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1962a). The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function.Psychometrika 27: 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1962b). Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II.Psychometrika 27: 219–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. C. (1958). Stimulus spacing and the judgement of loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology 56: 246–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1960). On the new psychophysics.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1: 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1966). A metric for social consensus.Science 151: 530–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychological measurement.Psychological Review 78: 426–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual Neural and Social Prospect. Wiley.

  • Stevens, S. S. and Greenbaum, H. B. (1966). Regression effect in psychophysical judgment.Perception and Psychophysics 1: 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tursky, B. and Lodge, M. (1979). Comparison between category and magnitude scaling of political. Opinion employing SRC/CPS items.American Political Sciences Review 73: 50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, G. (1976).The Analysis of Cross-Tabulated Data. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, G. (1980). Contingency and tables analysis: log-linear models. In J. Alt (ed.), Advances in Quantity Analysis.Quality and Quantity 1: 155–180.

  • Van Doorn, L., Saris, W. E. and Lodge, M. (1983). Discrete or continuous measurement. What difference does it make?Kwantitatieve Methoden 10: 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, L. and Zijlstra, F. (1988). Variation in response functions complicates the evaluation of scales. In W. E. Saris (ed.),Variation in Response Functions: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, B. (ed.) (1982).Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data.Applied Psychologcial Measurement 9: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. P. (1971). Critique of ordinal variables. In H. M. Blalock, Jr. (ed.),Causal Models in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Métodos, E.S.A.D.E., (Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya), Avda. de Pedralbes 60-62, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Joan Manuel Batista-Foguet

  2. Methodology Department, Political Sciences Faculty (University of Amsterdam), Grimburgwal 10, Gebouw 3, 1012 GA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Willem E. Saris

Authors
  1. Joan Manuel Batista-Foguet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Willem E. Saris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batista-Foguet, J.M., Saris, W.E. A new measurement procedure for attitudinal research. Analysis of its psychometric and informational properties. Qual Quant 26, 127–146 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02273549

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02273549

Keywords

Search

Navigation