Respondent Behavior in Magnitude Estimation
数量估计法中的受访者行为AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究调查测量与受访者作答行为,虽涉及个体差异,但没有直接对应所列分布效应或离散选择模型。
数量估计法中的受访者行为AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Some researchers argue that data obtained using magnitude estimation have metric properties superior to those of data obtained using traditional survey items. The analysis in this article examines evidence relevant to the assumptions that respondents can express ratios using numbers, can locate an internal continuum, and can use the standard stimulus effectively. The data are answers to 5 practice items designed to teach magnitude estimation using line lengths and up to 18 items about stress experienced in caring for a sick person. The five practice items provide evidence of respondents' ability to give numeric estimates: 28% gave at least one answer that falls outside fairly tolerant boundaries that define a reasonable answer. Other results indicate that respondents do not improve with practice, that accuracy on the practice items does not predict good performance on magnitude estimates of a subjective property, and that respondents for whom the standard stress stimulus was hypothetical were more likely than others to answer inappropriately. Scale values calculated as medians or geometric means are accurate for the practice items and at least sensible for the care-giving items. Evaluating individual-level scores is more difficult. On the one hand, using a single point estimate entails considerable error, and unscalable answers may have disproportionate effects on individual level statistics. Furthermore, older, less educated, and male respondents find providing magnitude estimates difficult, possibly biasing analysis of individual scores. On the other hand, magnitude estimates may preserve important distinctions among individuals and may be less susceptible to bias arising from group differences in the use of the phrases attached to category ratings.