Measurement Scales for Quantifying Attributes

1981 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph L. Keeney
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Scales

D-test: A New Test for Analyzing Scale Invariance Using Symbolic Dynamics and Symbolic Entropy

Methodology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Martínez ◽  
Manuel Ruiz Marín
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Dynamics ◽  
Scale Invariance ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Improve Measurement ◽  
Entropy Measures ◽  
The Difference

The aim of this study is to improve measurement in marketing research by constructing a new, simple, nonparametric, consistent, and powerful test to study scale invariance. The test is called D-test. D-test is constructed using symbolic dynamics and symbolic entropy as a measure of the difference between the response patterns which comes from two measurement scales. We also give a standard asymptotic distribution of our statistic. Given that the test is based on entropy measures, it avoids smoothed nonparametric estimation. We applied D-test to a real marketing research to study if scale invariance holds when measuring service quality in a sports service. We considered a free-scale as a reference scale and then we compared it with three widely used rating scales: Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 7, and semantic-differential scale from −3 to +3. Scale invariance holds for the two latter scales. This test overcomes the shortcomings of other procedures for analyzing scale invariance; and it provides researchers a tool to decide the appropriate rating scale to study specific marketing problems, and how the results of prior studies can be questioned.

Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Short Version

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Lorish ◽  
Noval Abraham ◽  
Janet S. Austin ◽  
Laurence A. Bradley ◽  
Graciela S. Alarcón
Keyword(s):  
Short Version ◽  
Impact Measurement ◽  
Measurement Scales

Management Measurement Scale As A Reference To Determine Interval In A Variable

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Qurotul Aini ◽  
Siti Ria Zuliana ◽  
Nuke Puji Lestari Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Short Length ◽  
Measurement Scale ◽  
Measuring Instrument ◽  
Guttman Scale ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Thurstone Scale

The scale is usually used to check and determine the value of a qualitative factor in quantitative measures. The measurement scale is a management in agreement that is used as a reference to determine the short length of the interval that is in the measuring instrument, so that the measuring instrument when used in measurements will produce quantitative data. The results of the scale management calculation must be interpreted carefully because in addition to producing a rough picture, the respondent's answers are not just straightforward to be trusted. Types of measurement scales: Likert scale, Guttman scale, semantic differential scale, rating scale, Thurstone scale, Borgadus scale, and various other measurement management scales. One of the most difficult jobs for information technology researchers faced with the necessity of measuring variables is: finding directions in the midst of many existing sizes. If there is a good size for a particular variable, it seems that there are not many reasons to compile a new size yourself. Keywords: Scale, Measurement, Variables.

Development of a Personal Values Scale For Tourism Using a Mixed Method

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-218
Author(s):  
Won Seok Lee ◽  
Joon Moon
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Method ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Cultural Value ◽  
Measurement Scale ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Rest Time ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
Self Examination ◽  
Value Measurement

This study aims to develop cross-cultural value measurement scales that can overcome established methodological problems and test the dimensional frameworks of the scale with non-Asian respondents. It applies a mixed-method approach to observe intrinsic, nationally distinct values, and develop a generalized values measurement scale. This study found new value dimensions that were not present in the previous value studies (i.e., life balance, emotional growth, family union, and friendship) and provided segmented subdimensions (i.e., balancing between work and rest, time management, rewards of investment, and self-examination). This complements and enhances the current body of knowledge on value measurement.

Cancer-related fatigue: an overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. S36-S43
Author(s):  
Mohammed Al Maqbali
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Major Life ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Diagnosis Of Cancer ◽  
Life Stressor

A diagnosis of cancer is a major life stressor that can affect the physiological, psychological and physical state of the person concerned. Fatigue is a particularly common and troubling symptom that has a negative impact on quality of life throughout all phases of treatment and stages of the illness. The aim of this review is to provide background information on cancer-related fatigue. This review discusses cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in terms of the definition, prevalence, risk factors, aetiology, and the measurement scales used. The differences between definitions of symptoms and relevant theories will be explored and discussed to help explain the variety of instruments used in its measurement. The prevalence of fatigue will be assessed by looking critically at the evidence of fatigue and the factors that affect it. Potential treatment and management strategies for CRF will also be discussed. Finally, there will be an overview of the instruments used to measure fatigue. This review also provides important evidence for measuring and managing CRF that can help nurses to understand fatigue among patients with cancer. Assessing CRF should be routinely undertaken in clinical settings to help identify the proper interventions, treatments and management to reduce fatigue among cancer patients.

scholarly journals Measurement scales and welfarist social choice

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 127-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Morreau ◽  
John A. Weymark
Keyword(s):  
Social Choice ◽  
Measurement Scales

“Apparent Behavior” Revisited

1973 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Morley Greenberg ◽  
Lloyd H. Strickland
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Social Attribution ◽  
Physical Stimuli

Ss were asked to attribute characteristics to the geometrical objects in the film used by Heider and Simmel, using 3 clusters of adjectives taken from the activity, potency, and evaluative dimensions respectively of the semantic differential. The original, descriptive findings of Heider and Simmel received support from the results derived from the use of measurement “scales.” The implications of the use of movies of “interacting” physical stimuli in the study of social attribution processes were discussed, and hypotheses and methods for additional studies were ventured.

The development and use of observational measurement scales

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen F. Morrison ◽  
Linda R. Phillips ◽  
Young Mi Chae
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Observational Measurement

scholarly journals A simplified combined index of structure and function for detecting and staging glaucomatous damage

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhichao Wu ◽  
Felipe A. Medeiros
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Mean Deviation ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Empirical Formulas ◽  
Fiber Layer ◽  
Glaucomatous Damage ◽  
Functional Changes ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Better Than

AbstractGlaucomatous damage results in characteristics structural and functional changes on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging and standard automated perimetry (SAP) testing. The clinical utility of these measures differs based on disease severity, as they are evaluated along different measurement scales. This study therefore sought to examine if a simplified combined structure–function index (sCSFI) could improve the detection and staging of glaucomatous damage, compared to the use of average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFL) measurements from OCT and mean deviation (MD) values from SAP alone, and also an estimated retinal ganglion cell counts (eRGC) measure derived using empirical formulas described previously. Examining 577 eyes from 354 participants with perimetric glaucoma and 241 normal eyes from 138 healthy participants, we found that the sCSFI performed significantly better than average RNFL, MD and eRGC count for discriminating between glaucoma and healthy eyes (P ≤ 0.008 for all). The sCSFI also performed significantly better than RNFL and eRGC count at discriminating between different levels of visual field damage in glaucoma eyes (P < 0.001 for both). These findings highlight the clinical utility of combining structural and functional information for detecting and staging glaucomatous damage using the simplified index developed in this study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document