Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stevens’ Direct Scaling Methods and the Uniqueness Problem

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stevens postulated that we can use the responses of a participant in a ratio scaling experiment directly to construct a psychophysical function representing the participant’s sensations. Although Stevens’ methods of constructing measurement scales are widely used in the behavioral sciences, the problem of which scale type is appropriate to describe ratio scaling data is still unresolved. To deal with this problem, we develop a theoretical framework to specify the scale type attained by Stevens’ direct scaling methods. It is shown, under fairly mild background assumptions, that the behavioral axioms presented in this paper are necessary and sufficient for the psychophysical functions to be ordinal-, interval-, log-interval-, or ratio-scales. Furthermore, suggestions on how to test these behavioral axioms are provided.

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

  • Anderson, N.H. (1970). Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 77, 153–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N.H. (1976). Integration theory, functional measurement and the psychophysical law. In H.G. Geissler, & Y.M. Zabrodin (Eds.), Advances in psychophysics (pp. 93–129). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellermeier, W., & Faulhammer, G. (2000). Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens’s ratio-scaling approach: I. Loudness production. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1505–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellermeier, W., Narens, L., & Dielmann, B. (2003). Perceptual ratios, differences, and the underlying scale. In B. Berglund, & E. Borg (Eds.), Fechner Day 2003. Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the international society for psychophysics (pp. 71–76). Stockholm: International Society for Psychophysics.

  • Falmagne, J.-Cl. (1985). Elements of psychophysical theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gescheider, G.A. (1985). Psychophysics. Method, theory, and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C.H. (1958). Sensation and perception in an objective psychology. Psychological Review, 65, 65–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (2000). Utility of gains and losses: Measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (2002). A psychophysical theory of intensity proportions, joint presentations, and matches. Psychological Review, 109, 520–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (2004). Symmetric and asymmetric matching of joint presentations. Psychological Review, 111, 446–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, F.P. (1985). Another look at the “New psychophysics“, British Journal of Psychology, 76, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narens, L. (1996). A theory of ratio magnitude estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narens, L. (1997). On subjective intensity and its measurement. In A.A.J. Marley (Ed.), Choice, decision, and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce (pp. 189–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narens, L. (2002). The irony of measurement by subjective estimations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peißner, M. (1999). Experimente zur direkten Skalierbarkeit von gesehenen Helligkeiten [Experiments on the direct scalability of perceived brightness]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universität Regensburg.

  • Shepard, R.N. (1978). On the status of “Direct” psychological measurement. In C.W. Savage (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 441–490). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R.N. (1981). Psychological relations and psychophysical scles: On the status of “Direct” psychological measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24, 21–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R.D. (in press (a)). Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments—I: Behavioral properties of summations and productions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R.D. (in press (b)). Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments—II: Behavioral properties linking summations and productions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

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

    Article  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 

  • Stevens, S.S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological review, 78, 426–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, W.S. (1961). Distances and ratios in psychological scaling. Acta Psychologica, 19, 201–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, K. (2005). Examining the validity of numerical ratios in loudness fractionation. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 569–579.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Graz, Graz

    Thomas Augustin

Authors
  1. Thomas Augustin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Augustin.

Additional information

Requests for reprints should be sent to thomas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Augustin, T. Stevens’ Direct Scaling Methods and the Uniqueness Problem. Psychometrika 71, 469–481 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-004-1200-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-004-1200-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation