Measurement and Scaling:

Fundamentals and
Comparative Scaling
3-2
3-3
 3-4

Figure 8.2 A Classification of Scaling Techniques

Scaling Techniques

Comparative Non-comparative
Scales Scales

Paired Rank Constant Q-Sort and Continuous Itemized

Comparison Order Sum Other Rating Scales Rating Scales
Procedures

Semantic Stapel
Likert
Differential
 Figure 8.1 Primary Scales of Measurement
Scale
Nominal Numbers Finish
Assigned 7 8 3
to Runners

Ordinal Rank Order Finish

of Winners
Third Second First
place place place

Interval Performance
Rating on a 8.2 9.1 9.6

0 to 10 Scale
15.2 14.1 13.4
Ratio Time to
Finish, in
Table 8.1 Primary Scales of Measurement
Scale Basic Common Marketing Permissible Statistics
Characteristics Examples Examples Descriptive Inferential
Nominal Numbers identify Social Brand nos., Percentages, Chi-square,
& classify objects Security nos., store types mode binomial test
numbering of
football
players
Ordinal Nos. indicate the Quality Preference Percentile, Rank-order
relative positions rankings, rankings, median correlation,
of objects but not rankings of market Friedman
the magnitude of teams in a position, ANOVA
differences tournament social class
between them
Interval Differences Temperature Attitudes, Range, mean, Product-
between objects (Fahrenheit, opinions, standard moment
can be compared, Celsius) index nos. deviation correlation,
zero point is t tests,
arbitrary regression

Ratio Zero point is Length, Age, sales, Geometric Coefficient

fixed, ratios of weight income, mean, of variation
scale values can costs harmonic
be compared mean
 Table 8.2 Illustration of Primary Scales of
Measurement
Nominal Ordinal Interval Ratio
Scale Scale Scale Scale
Preference Preference Ratings $ spent
last No. Store Rankings 1-7 11-17
3 months 7 79 5 15 0
1. Lord & Taylor
2. Macy’s
2 25 7 17 200
3. Kmart
8 82 7 17 0
4. Rich’s 3 30 6 16 100
5. J.C. Penny 1 10 7 17 250
6. Neiman Marcus 5 53 5 15 35
7. Target 9 95 4 14 0
8. Saks Fifth Avenue 6 61 5 15 100
9. Sears 4 45 6 16 0
10.Wal-Mart
Figure 8.3 Obtaining Shampoo Preferences Using
Paired Comparisons
Instructions: We are going to present you with ten pairs of shampoo
brands. For each pair, please indicate which one of the two brands of
shampoo you would prefer for personal use.
Recording Form: Jhirmack Finesse Vidal Heads & Pert
Sassoon Shoulders
Jhirmack 0 0 1 0
Finesse 1a 0 1 0
Vidal Sassoon 1 1 1 1
Head & Shoulders 0 0 0 0
Pert 1 1 0 1
Number of Times 3 2 0 4 1
Preferredb
a
A 1 in a particular box means that the brand in that column was
preferred over the brand in the corresponding row. A 0 means that the
row brand was preferred over the column brand. bThe number of times
a brand was preferred is obtained by summing the 1s in each column.
RIP 8.1 Paired Comparison Scaling
The most common method of taste testing is paired comparison. The
consumer is asked to sample two different products and select the one with
the most appealing taste. The test is done in private and a minimum of 1,000
responses is considered an adequate sample. A blind taste test for a soft
drink, where imagery, self-perception and brand reputation are very
important factors in the consumer’s purchasing decision, may not be a good
indicator of performance in the marketplace. The introduction of New Coke
illustrates this point. New Coke was heavily favored in blind paired
comparison taste tests, but its introduction was less than successful, because
image plays a major role in the purchase of Coke.

A paired comparison
taste test
Figure 8.4 Preference for Toothpaste Brands
Using Rank Order Scaling
Instructions: Rank the various brands of toothpaste in order of
preference. Begin by picking out the one brand that you like most
and assign it a number 1. Then find the second most preferred
brand and assign it a number 2. Continue this procedure until you
have ranked all the brands of toothpaste in order of preference.
The least preferred brand should be assigned a rank of 10.
No two brands should receive the same rank number.
The criterion of preference is entirely up to you. There is no right
or wrong answer. Just try to be consistent.
Figure 8.4 Contd.

Brand Rank Order

1. Crest _________
2. Colgate _________
3. Aim _________
4. Gleem _________
5. Macleans _________
6. Ultra Brite _________
7. Close Up _________
8. Pepsodent _________
9. Plus White _________
10. Stripe _________
Figure 8.5 Importance of Toilet Soap Attributes
Using a Constant Sum Scale

Instructions
On the next slide are eight attributes of bathing soaps.
Please allocate 100 points among the attributes so that
your allocation reflects the relative importance you
attach to each attribute. The more points an attribute
receives, the more important the attribute is. If an
attribute is not at all important, assign it zero points. If
an attribute is twice as important as some other
attribute, it should receive twice as many points.
 Figure 8.5 Contd.

Form
Average Responses of Three Segments
Attribute Segment
I Segment II Segment III
8 2 4
1. Mildness 2 4 17
2. Lather 3 9 7
3. Shrinkage 53 17 9
4. Price 9 0 19
5. Fragrance 7 5 9
6. Packaging 5 3 20
7. Moisturizing 13 60 15
8. Cleaning Power
Sum
100 100 100
 3-14

Noncomparative Scaling Techniques

 Respondents evaluate only one object at a time, and
for this reason noncomparative scales are often
referred to as monadic scales.
 Noncomparative techniques consist of continuous
and itemized rating scales.
 3-15

Continuous Rating Scale

Respondents rate the objects by placing a mark at the appropriate position
on a line that runs from one extreme of the criterion variable to the other.
The form of the continuous scale may vary considerably.

How would you rate Sears as a department store?

Version 1
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Probably the best

Version 2
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Probably the best
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100

Version 3
Very bad Neither good Very good
nor bad
Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Probably the best
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
 3-16

Itemized Rating Scales

 The respondents are provided with a scale that has a
number or brief description associated with each
category.
 The categories are ordered in terms of scale position,
and the respondents are required to select the
specified category that best describes the object
being rated.
 The commonly used itemized rating scales are the
Likert, semantic differential, and Stapel scales.
 3-17

Likert Scale
The Likert scale requires the respondents to indicate a degree of agreement or
disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus objects.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree nor agree

disagree

1. Sears sells high quality merchandise. 1 2X 3 4 5

2. Sears has poor in-store service. 1 2X 3 4 5

3. I like to shop at Sears. 1 2 3X 4 5

 The analysis can be conducted on an item-by-item basis (profile analysis), or a

total (summated) score can be calculated.

 When arriving at a total score, the categories assigned to the negative

statements by the respondents should be scored by reversing the scale.
 3-18

Semantic Differential Scale

The semantic differential is a seven-point rating scale with end
points associated with bipolar labels that have semantic meaning.

SEARS IS:
Powerful --:--:--:--:-X-:--:--: Weak
Unreliable --:--:--:--:--:-X-:--: Reliable
Modern --:--:--:--:--:--:-X-: Old-fashioned

 The negative adjective or phrase sometimes appears at the left

side of the scale and sometimes at the right.
 This controls the tendency of some respondents, particularly
those with very positive or very negative attitudes, to mark the
right- or left-hand sides without reading the labels.
 Individual items on a semantic differential scale may be scored
on either a -3 to +3 or a 1 to 7 scale.
 3-19

Stapel Scale
The Stapel scale is a unipolar rating scale with ten categories
numbered from -5 to +5, without a neutral point (zero). This scale
is usually presented vertically.
SEARS

+5 +5
+4 +4
+3 +3
+2 +2X
+1 +1
HIGH QUALITY POOR SERVICE
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4X -4
-5 -5

The data obtained by using a Stapel scale can be analyzed in the

same way as semantic differential data.
 3-20

Basic Noncomparative Scales

Table 9.1
Scale Basic Examples Advantages Disadvantages
Characteristics
Continuous Place a mark on a Reaction to Easy to construct Scoring can be
Rating continuous line TV cumbersome
Scale commercials unless
computerized
Itemized Rating
Scales

Likert Scale Degrees of Measurement Easy to construct, More

agreement on a 1 of attitudes administer, and time - consuming
(strongly disagree) understand
to 5 (strongly agree)
scale

Semantic Seven - point scale Brand, Versatile Controversy as

Differential with bipolar labels product, and to whether the
company data are interval
images

Stapel Unipolar ten - point Measurement Easy to construct, Confusing and

Scale scale, - 5 to +5, of attitudes administer over difficult to apply
witho ut a neutral and images telephone
point (zero)
 3-21

Scale Evaluation
Figure 9.5
Scale Evaluation

Reliability Validity Generalizability

Test/ Alternative Internal

Content Criterion Construct
Retest Forms Consistency

Convergent Discriminant Nomological

 3-22

Measurement Accuracy
The true score model provides a framework for
understanding the accuracy of measurement.

XO = XT + XS + XR

where

XO = the observed score or measurement

XT = the true score of the characteristic
XS = systematic error
XR = random error
 3-23

Reliability
 Reliability can be defined as the extent to which
measures are free from random error, XR. If XR = 0,
the measure is perfectly reliable.
 In test-retest reliability, respondents are
administered identical sets of scale items at two
different times and the degree of similarity between
the two measurements is determined.
 In alternative-forms reliability, two equivalent
forms of the scale are constructed and the same
respondents are measured at two different times,
with a different form being used each time.
 3-24

Reliability
 Internal consistency reliability determines the
extent to which different parts of a summated scale
are consistent in what they indicate about the
characteristic being measured.
 In split-half reliability, the items on the scale are
divided into two halves and the resulting half scores
are correlated.
 The coefficient alpha, or Cronbach's alpha, is the
average of all possible split-half coefficients resulting
from different ways of splitting the scale items. This
coefficient varies from 0 to 1, and a value of 0.6 or
less generally indicates unsatisfactory internal
consistency reliability.
 3-25

Validity
 The validity of a scale may be defined as the extent
to which differences in observed scale scores reflect
true differences among objects on the characteristic
being measured, rather than systematic or random
error. Perfect validity requires that there be no
measurement error (XO = XT, XR = 0, XS = 0).
 Content validity is a subjective but systematic
evaluation of how well the content of a scale
represents the measurement task at hand.
 Criterion validity reflects whether a scale performs
as expected in relation to other variables selected
(criterion variables) as meaningful criteria.
 3-26

Validity
 Construct validity addresses the question of what
construct or characteristic the scale is, in fact,
measuring. Construct validity includes convergent,
discriminant, and nomological validity.
 Convergent validity is the extent to which the
scale correlates positively with other measures of the
same construct.
 Discriminant validity is the extent to which a
measure does not correlate with other constructs
from which it is supposed to differ.
 Nomological validity is the extent to which the
scale correlates in theoretically predicted ways with
measures of different but related constructs.
 3-27

Relationship Between Reliability and Validity

 If a measure is perfectly valid, it is also perfectly
reliable. In this case XO = XT, XR = 0, and XS = 0.
 If a measure is unreliable, it cannot be perfectly
valid, since at a minimum XO = XT + XR.
Furthermore, systematic error may also be present,
i.e., XS≠0. Thus, unreliability implies invalidity.
 If a measure is perfectly reliable, it may or may not
be perfectly valid, because systematic error may still
be present (XO = XT + XS).
 Reliability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for validity.