IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i5p2869-2882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the optimal number of scale points in graded paired comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Alain De Beuckelaer
  • Stef Toonen
  • Eldad Davidov

Abstract

In market research, it is common practice to measure individuals’ brand or product preference through graded paired comparisons (GPCs). One important decision concerns the (odd) number of scale points (e.g., five, seven, nine, or eleven) that has to be assigned to either brands or products in each pair. Using data from an experiment with 122 students, we assessed the extent to which GPCs with a higher number of scale points (requiring more cognitive effort) really outperform GPCs with a smaller number of scale points (requiring less cognitive effort). Our data analyses have shown that one may reduce the (odd) number of scale points from eleven to nine or seven, depending on what minor compromises one is willing to make. The detailed psychometric results presented in this paper are useful to applied researchers as they help them in making well-informed decisions on the number of scale points in a GPC task. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Alain De Beuckelaer & Stef Toonen & Eldad Davidov, 2013. "On the optimal number of scale points in graded paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2869-2882, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:5:p:2869-2882
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9695-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9695-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-012-9695-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guy Moors, 2008. "Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 779-794, December.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Trine Kjær & Jørgen Lauridsen & Jan Sørensen, 2007. "Graded pairs comparison ‐ does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 513-529, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Gottard & Maria Iannario & Domenico Piccolo, 2016. "Varying uncertainty in CUB models," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 10(2), pages 225-244, June.
    2. Kristiina Janhunen, 2012. "A comparison of Likert-type rating and visually-aided rating in a simple moral judgment experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1471-1477, August.
    3. Paola Annoni & Nicholas Charron, 2019. "Measurement Assessment in Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Rasch Modelling on a Measure of Institutional Quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 31-60, January.
    4. Alain De Beuckelaer & Jarl Kampen & J. Van Trijp, 2013. "An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 1063-1076, February.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Mingnan Liu & Frederick G. Conrad & Sunghee Lee, 2017. "Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 941-958, March.
    7. Marek Cech & Martin Januska, 2020. "Evaluation of Risk Management Maturity in the Czech Automotive Industry: Model and Methodology," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(55), pages 824-824, August.
    8. Liu Mingnan & Keusch Florian, 2017. "Effects of Scale Direction on Response Style of Ordinal Rating Scales," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(1), pages 137-154, March.
    9. Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa & Laura Limiñana-Bravo, 2019. "An Instrument to Measure Mental Health Professionals’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Service Users’ Rights," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Pasquale Anselmi & Luigi Fabbris & Maria Cristiana Martini & Egidio Robusto, 2018. "Comparison of four common data collection techniques to elicit preferences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1227-1239, May.
    11. Chau-kiu Cheung & Raymond Ngan, 2012. "Filtered Life Satisfaction and Its Socioeconomic Determinants in Hong Kong," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 223-242, November.
    12. Alice Barth & Andreas Schmitz, 2018. "Response quality and ideological dispositions: an integrative approach using geometric and classifying techniques," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 175-194, January.
    13. Stefania Capecchi & Domenico Piccolo, 2017. "Dealing with heterogeneity in ordinal responses," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2375-2393, September.

    Corrections

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:5:p:2869-2882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.