IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

You Name It: Comparing Holistic and Analytical Rating Methods of Eliciting Preferences in Naming an Online Program Using Ranks as a Concurrent Validity Criterion


  • Michael J. Roszkowski

    (La Salle University, USA)

  • Scott Spreat

    (Woods Services, Inc., USA)


Current and prospective students (n =133) were surveyed about their preferences for a name for a new online series of courses to be launched by a university. Preferences for each of five names were solicited by means of analytical ratings, holistic ratings, and rankings. All three techniques were employed to assure that the most appropriate name for the program was selected, but this also afforded us the opportunity to study several theoretical issues: (a) Do the different methods lead to discrepant decisions at the aggregate level? (b) Is the holistic rating or the analytical rating approach more closely related to the rankings? (c) To what extent is lack of agreement between ratings and rankings due to lack of differentiation in ratings? The authors find that at the aggregate level all three methods suggest the same name for the program; the holistic rating is slightly more highly correlated with the ranking; and the lack of differentiation in ratings is one reason producing inconsistencies between ratings and rankings.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Roszkowski & Scott Spreat, 2012. "You Name It: Comparing Holistic and Analytical Rating Methods of Eliciting Preferences in Naming an Online Program Using Ranks as a Concurrent Validity Criterion," International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing (IJTEM), IGI Global, vol. 2(1), pages 59-79, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:igg:jtem00:v:2:y:2012:i:1:p:59-79

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jtem00:v:2:y:2012:i:1:p:59-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journal Editor). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.