Successive Intervals Scaling of Paired Comparisons | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

In this paper a method is developed for analyzing data resulting from the use of a modification of the usual paired comparisons procedure which allows for ratings of size of difference. The scaling model is essentially an extension of the Thurstonian successive intervals model. The method is applied to scaling of a set of nine “immoral” actions and the results agree rather well with those from conventional successive intervals scaling of the same stimuli.

References

Bock, R. D. Remarks on the test of significance for the method of paired comparisons. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diederich, G. W. and Messick, S. J., Tucker, L. R. A general least squares solution for successive intervals. Psychometrika, 1957, 22, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. L. and Thurstone, L. L. An internal consistency check for scale values determined by the method of successive intervals. Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ekman, G. Measurement f moral judgment: a comparison of scaling methods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 15, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glenn, W. A. and David, H. A. Ties in paired comparison experiments using a modified Thurstone-Mosteller model. Biometrics, 1960, 16, 86–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, M. G. A modification of Thurstone's law of comparative judgment to accommo-date a judgment category of “equal” or “no difference.”. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Luce, R. D. Discrimination. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. and Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. I, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar

Messick, S. J. An empirical evaluation of multidimensional successive intervals. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: III. A test of significance for paired comparisons when equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saffir, M. A comparative study of scales constructed by three psychophysical methods. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheffé, H. An analysis of variance for paired comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1952, 47, 381–400.Google Scholar

Sjöberg, L. The law of comparative judgment: a case not assuming equal variances and covariances. Scandianavian Journal of Psychology, 1962, 3, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sjöberg, L. An empirical application of a new case of the law of comparative judgment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 4, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sjöberg, L. Successive intervals scaling with unequal variances and covariances. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1964, 5, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sjöberg, L. Thurstonian methods in the measurement of learning. Scandinavian journal of Psychology, 1965, 6, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sjöberg, L. A study of four methods for scaling paired comparisons data. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1965, 6, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sjöberg, L. Studies in Thurstonian Scaling, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965.Google Scholar

Sjöberg, L. A method for sensation scaling based on an analogy between perception and judgment. Perception and Psychophysics, 1966, 1, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 1927, 38, 368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar