unit ii scaling

8/12/2019 Unit II Scaling

1/57


2/57


3/57

Scaling The generation of a continuum upon which measured

objects are located.

Scale A quantifying measure a combination of items that

is progressively arranged according to value ormagnitude.

Purpose is to quantitatively represent an items, persons, or events place in the scaling continuum.

Some Key Concepts


4/57

PrimaryScales

NominalScale

OrdinalScale

RatioScale

IntervalScale

Levels of Measurement -Primary Scales


5/57

Nominal [categorization]

A scale in which the numbers or lettersassigned to objects serve as labels foridentification or classification.

Ordinal [Categorization + rank and order ] A scale that arranges objects or

alternatives according to their magnitudein an ordered relationship.

Primary Scales of Measurement


6/57

Interval [Equal distance between any two consecutive measures] A scale that both arranges objects

according to their magnitudes and Distinguishes the ordered arrangement in

units of equal intervals

I.e., indicate order and measure order(or distance) in units of equal intervals Ex. Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales



7/57

Ratio A scale that has absolute rather than

relative quantities and an absolutezero where a given attribute is absent.

Money & weight are good examples

of attributes that possess absolutezeros and interval properties.



8/57

7 38

Primary Scales of MeasurementScale

Nominal NumbersAssignedto Runners

Ordinal Rank Orderof Winners

Interval PerformanceRating on a0 to 10 Scale

Ratio Time toFinish, in

Seconds

Thirdplace

Secondplace

Firstplace

Finish

Finish

8.2 9.1 9.6

15.2 14.1 13.4


9/57

Primary Scales of MeasurementScale Basic

Characteristics

Common

Examples

Marketing

ExamplesNominal Numbers identify

& classify objectsSocial Securitynos., numberingof football players

Brand nos., storetypes

Percentages,mode

Chi-square,binomial test

Ordinal Nos. indicate the

relative positionsof objects but notthe magnitude ofdifferencesbetween them

Quality rankings,

rankings of teamsin a tournament

Preference

rankings, marketposition, socialclass

Percentile,

median

Rank-order

correlation,Friedman ANOVA

Ratio Zero point is fixed,ratios of scalevalues can be

compared

Length, weight Age, sales,income, costs

Geometricmean, harmonicmean

Coefficient ofvariation

Permissible Statistics

Descriptive Inferential

Interval Differencesbetween objects

Temperature(Fahrenheit)

Attitudes,opinions, index

Range, mean,standard

Product-moment


10/57

Comparison of Measurement Scales

Label Order Distance Origin

Nominal scale Yes No No No

Ordinal scale Yes Yes No No

Interval scale Yes Yes Yes No

Ratio scale Yes Yes Yes Yes


11/57

Comparative Scales Involve the direct comparison of

two or more objects Non-comparative Scales

Objects or stimuli are scaledindependently of each other.

Classifying Scaling Techniques


12/57

Scaling

Techniques

ComparativeScales

PairedComparison

ConstantSum

RankOrder

NoncomparativeScales

ItemizedRating Scales

ContinuousRating Scales

Likert

SemanticDifferential

Stapel

Classifying Scaling Techniques


13/57

Respondent is presented with two objects at atime Asked to select one object in the pair according to

some criterion Data obtained are ordinal in nature

Arranged or ranked in order of magnitude

Easy to do if only a few items are compared. If number of comparisons is too large,

respondents may become fatigued and no longer

carefully discriminate among them.

Paired Comparison Scaling


14/57

Paired Comparison Items

A and B

A and C A and D B and C

B and D C and D

If we have brands A, B, C and D, we would haverespondents compare

Usually limited to N < 15


15/57

Paired Comparison Please indicate which of the following airlines you

prefer by circling your more preferred airline in each pair:

Air Canada WestJet

Air Transat Air CanadaZip WestJetWestJet Air TransatAir Canada ZipZip Air Transat


16/57

Respondents are presented with severalobjects simultaneously

Then asked to order or rank themaccording to some criterion.

Data obtained are ordinal in nature

Arranged or ranked in order of magnitude Commonly used to measure preferences

among brands and brand attributes

Rank Order Scaling


17/57

Rank the following soft-drinks from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) accordingto your taste preference:

Coca-Cola _____

7-Up _____

Dr. Pepper _____

Pepsi-Cola _____

Mountain Dew _____

Rank-Order Scales

Top and bottom rank choices are easy Middle ranks are usually most difficult


18/57

Brand Rank Order (1 to 10)1. Crest2. Colgate3. Aim

4. Mentadent5. Macleans6. Ultra Brite7. Close Up8. Pepsodent9. Plus White

10. Stripe


19/57

Respondents are asked to allocate a constantsum of units among a set of stimulus objectswith respect to some criterion

Units allocated represent the importanceattached to the objects.

Data obtained are interval in nature Allows for fine discrimination among

alternatives

Constant Sum Scaling


20/57

Constant Sum Scale

Please divide 100 points among the following characteristicsso the division reflects the relative importance of eachcharacteristic to you in the selection of a bank

Hours of service _______________

Friendliness _______________

Distance from home _______________

Investment vehicles _______________

Parking facilities _______________


21/57

Constant Sum Scales

Allocate a total of 100 points among the following soft-drinksdepending on how favorable you feel toward each; the morehighly you think of each soft-drink, the more points you shouldallocate to it. (Please check that the allocated points add to 100.)

Coca-Cola _____ points7-Up _____ points

Dr. Pepper _____ points

Tab _____ pointsPepsi-Cola _____ points

100


22/57

COMPARATIVE SCALES

Compared to Chevrolet, Ford is:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

less about the more

innovative same innovative


23/57

Non-Comparative Scaling


24/57

NoncomparativeRating Scales

Continuous

Rating ScalesItemized

Rating Scales

SemanticDifferential

Stapel Likert

Classifying Noncomparative Scaling Techniques


25/57

Continuous scale

Non comparative scale

How would you rate Marketing Research toother courses this term

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100The worst The BestXX


26/57


27/57

Method of Summated Ratings:The Likert Scale

Extremely popular means for measuringattitudes.

Respondents indicate their own attitudes bychecking how strongly they agree/disagreewith statements.

Response alternatives: strongly agree, agree, uncertain,

disagree, and strongly disagree .

Generally use either a 5- or 7-point scale


28/57

Itemised Rating Scales

Likert scale

Stronglyagree

disagree Neitheragree nordisagree

agree Stronglyagree

Market research is the mostinteresting subject known toman

1 2 3 4 5


29/57

The Likert scale

Itemised Rating Scales


30/57

Strongly AgreeAgreeUndecidedDisagreeStrongly

Disagree

Agree StronglyAgree ModeratelyAgree SlightlyDisagree SlightlyDisagreeModeratelyDisagree Strongly

AgreeDisagree

AgreeUndecidedDisagree

Agree Very StronglyAgree StronglyAgree

DisagreeDisagree StronglyDisagree VeryStrongly

Yes

No

CompletelyAgreeMostly AgreeSlightly Agree

SlightlyDisagreeMostly DisagreeCompletelyDisagree

DisagreeStronglyDisagreeTend toDisagreeTend to AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly

AGREEMENT


31/57

VeryFrequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely

Very Rarely Never

AlwaysVeryFrequently OccasionallyRarely

Very RarelyNever

AlwaysUsuallyAbout Half theTimeSeldomNever

Almost AlwaysTo a ConsiderableDegreeOccasionally

Seldom

A Great Deal

MuchSomewhatLittleNever

OftenSometimesSeldomNever

Always

Very OftenSometimesRarelyNever

FREQUENCY

IMPORTANCE


32/57

Very ImportantImportantModerately ImportantOf Little ImportanceUnimportant

Very ImportantModerately ImportantUnimportant

Very GoodGoodBarely AcceptablePoorVery Poor

Extremely PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent

GoodFairPoor

IMPORTANCE

QUALITY


33/57

Like MeUnlike Me

To a Great ExtentSomewhatVery LittleNot at All

TrueFalse

DefinitelyVery ProbablyProbablyPossiblyProbably NotVery Probably Not

Almost Always TrueUsually TrueOften TrueOccasionally TrueSometimes But Infrequently TrueUsually Not TrueAlmost Never True

True of MyselfMostly True of MyselfAbout Halfway True of MyselfSlightly True Of MyselfNot at All True of Myself

LIKELIHOOD


34/57

Semantic Differential Scales

A series of numbered (usually seven-point) bipolar rating scales.

Bipolar adjectives (for example, good and bad), anchor both ends (or poles) ofthe scale.

A weight is assigned to each position on therating scale. Traditionally, scores are 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, or

+3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3.


35/57

Semantic Differential Scales forMeasuring Attitudes Toward Tennis

Exciting ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : Calm

Interesting ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : Dull

Simple___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ Complex

Passive ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ : ___ Active

N C i S l


36/57

Non-Comparative Scales


37/57

Modern Store

Low prices

Unfriendly staff

Narrow product rangeSophisticated customers

Old- fashioned store

High prices

Friendly staff

Wide product rangeUnsophisticated customers

Semantic Differential Scale

Here are a number of statements that could be used to describe

K-Mart. For each statement tick ( X ) the box that best

describes your feelings about K-Mart.


38/57

Semantic Differential Scale -Snake Diagram

Modern Store

Low prices

Friendly staff

Wide product range

Sophisticated customers

Old- fashioned store

High prices

Unfriendly staff

Narrow product range

Unsophisticated customers

X

X

X

X

X

Key :Sears

X K-Mart


39/57

A St l S l


40/57

A Stapel Scalefor Measuring a Stores Image

DepartmentStore Name

+3

+2+1

Wide Selection

-1-2-3


41/57

The following questions concern your ratings of several suppliers that

provide products for use in your store.

Staple Scale

XYZPoor ProductSelection

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5

Costly Products -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5

Fast Service -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5

High QualityProducts

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5

Innovative -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5


42/57

Graphic Rating Scales

A graphic rating scale presents respondentswith a graphic continuum.


43/57

Graphic Rating Scale Stressing

Pictorial Visual Communications

3 2 1Very VeryGood Poor


44/57

44

Magnitude Scaling

Attempts to measure constructs along anumerical, ratio level scale

Respondent is given an item with a pre-assigned numerical value attached to it toestablish a norm

The respondent is asked to rate other items withnumerical values as a proportion of the norm

Very powerful if reliability is established


45/57

45

Thurston Scales

Thurston Scales Items are formed

Panel of experts assigns values from 1 to 11 toeach item

Mean or median scores are calculated for eachitem

Select statements evenly spread across the scale


46/57

46

Thurston Scales

Example:Please check the item that best describes your

level of willingness to try new tasks I seldom feel willing to take on new tasks (1.7) I will occasionally try new tasks (3.6)

I look forward to new tasks (6.9) I am excited to try new tasks (9.8)


47/57

47

Guttman Scales

Also known as Scalograms Both the respondents and items are ranked Cutting points are determined (Goodenough-

Edwards technique) Coefficient of Reproducibility (CR eg) - a

measure of goodness of fit between the

observed and predicted ideal response patterns

Keep items with CR eg of 0.90 or higher

Some Basic Considerations


48/57

Some Basic ConsiderationsWhen Selecting a Scale

Selecting a Rating, Ranking,Sorting, or Purchase Intent

Scale

Balanced Versus Non-balanced Alternatives

Number of Categories Odd or Even Number ofScale Categories

Forced Versus Non-forcedChoice


49/57


50/57

Balanced vs. Unbalanced

Balanced

Very good ______Good ______

Fair ______

Poor ______

Very Poor ______

Unbalanced

Excellent ______Very Good ______

Good ______

Fair ______

Poor ______


51/57

Balanced and Unbalanced Scales

Balanced Scale Unbalanced Scale

JOVAN M USK F OR M EN I S JOVAN M USK F OR M EN I S

Extremely good

Very good

Good

BadVery bad

Extremely bad

Extremely good

Very good

Somewhat Good

GoodBad

Very bad


52/57

Forced vs. Unforced

Forced

Extremely Reliable ___

Very Reliable ___

Somewhat Reliable ___

Somewhat Unreliable ___

Very Unreliable ___

Extremely Unreliable ___

Unforced

Extremely Reliable ___

Very Reliable ___Somewhat Reliable ___

Somewhat Unreliable ___

Very Unreliable ___Extremely Unreliable ___

Dont know ___


53/57

Labeled vs. End Anchored

Labeled

Excellent _____Very Good _____

Fair _____

Poor _____

Very Poor _____

End Anchored

Excellent _____ _____

_____

_____

Poor _____


54/57

Labeled

Excellent _____Very Good _____

Fair _____

Poor _____

Very Poor _____

Excellent _____

Very Good_____

Fair _____

Poor _____

Very Poor _____

Intervals May Not Reflect the SemanticMeaning of the Adjectives

Intervals AreNot Equal

Intervals AreNot Equal


55/57

Number of Scale Points

5 Point

Excellent _____

_____

_____

_____

Poor _____

10 Point

Excellent _____ _____________ _____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

_____________Poor


56/57

Scale EvaluationSCALE

EVALUATION

Reliability Validity

Test-Retest InternalConsistencyAlternative

Forms Construct

Criterion

Content

ConvergentValidity

DiscriminantValidity Nomological

Validity


57/57

Reliability and Validity

Neither ReliableNor Valid

Reliable ButNot Valid

ReliableAnd Valid

unit ii scaling

Documents