跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

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。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

数量估计法中的受访者行为

研究问题
受访者能否以数值可靠表达比率和主观强度,以及数量估计法在群体尺度与个体得分层面存在什么测量问题?
方法与思路
作者分析五道线长练习题及最多十八道照护压力题,考察回答准确性、练习效果、标准刺激和群体差异。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称 28% 的受访者至少有一道练习回答超出宽容边界;群体汇总较合理,但个体得分可能有较大误差。
阅读关注点
核对合理回答边界、无法标度答案的处理及群体差异分析,并区分中位数等汇总尺度与个体测量的可靠性。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;样本构成与误差评价细节未说明,不能认定该方法普遍优于传统量表。

原文摘要

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.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文