IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Assessment of the cross-national validity of an End-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking scale

Listed author(s):
  • Alain Beuckelaer

    ()

  • Machiel Zeeman
  • Hans Trijp
Registered author(s):

    An end-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking (PL) scale is an easy-to-apply instrument to examine consumers’ PL. Because 9-point hedonic PL scales are also popular in cross-national research, strong demands are put on its cross-national equivalence, that is, the absence of cross-national scoring bias. The present study provides a procedure to identify the presence of cross-national scoring bias in the use of the end-anchored 9-point hedonic PL scale or any other rating scale to measure PL. The procedure is illustrated on experimental (illustrative) data from students in four European nations (i.e., Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain). It explores cross-national equivalence in terms of (1) mean PL scores, (2) variation in PL scores, and (3) the impact of cross-cultural scoring bias in statistical inference making. Data analyses revealed that cross-national scoring bias only affected the variability in participants’ PL scores, but not the level of their PL scores. However, cross-national scoring bias in variation in PL scores did exert a substantial influence on a statistical inference making of mean PL scores. In sum, this study (1) provides preliminary evidence that cross-national scoring bias may seriously hamper the validity of cross-national comparisons of PL scores; and (2) offers a new methodology allowing food researchers to assess the extent to which the amount of cross-national scoring bias in their PL data will result in invalid cross-national comparisons. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-014-0049-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Quality & Quantity.

    Volume (Year): 49 (2015)
    Issue (Month): 3 (May)
    Pages: 1267-1286

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:3:p:1267-1286
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-0049-0
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. van Herk, H. & Poortinga, Y.H. & Verhallen, T.M.M., 2004. "Response styles in rating scales : Evidence of method bias in data from 6 EU countries," Other publications TiSEM c8befc7a-f2f4-44cf-b2fc-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. N L Reynolds & A C Simintiras & A Diamantopoulos, 2003. "Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international marketing research: key issues and guidelines for researchers," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 34(1), pages 80-89, January.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:49:y:2015:i:3:p:1267-1286. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.