ArticlePloS one2018
Why rate when you could compare? Using the "EloChoice" package to assess pairwise comparisons of perceived physical strength.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessing novelty, feasibility and value of creative ideas with an unsupervised approach using GPT-4.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Free-breathing phase-sensitive inversion recovery TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Introducing the fusion innovation test as a new paradigm for studying realworld creative problem solving.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Benthic communities on restored coral reefs confer equivalent aesthetic value to healthy reefs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Rating and ranking preparedness characteristics important for veterinary workplace clinical training: a novel application of pairwise comparisons and the Elo algorithm.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The aesthetic value of reef fishes is globally mismatched to their conservation priorities.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- The Effect of Odor Valence on Facial Attractiveness Judgment: A Preliminary Experiment.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Species diversity and composition drive the aesthetic value of coral reef fish assemblages.Biology letters · 2019Article
- Best-worst scaling improves measurement of first impressions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce "EloChoice", a package for R which uses Elo rating to assess pairwise comparisons between stimuli in order to measure perceived stimulus characteristics. To demonstrate the package and compare results from forced choice pairwise comparisons to those from more standard single stimulus rating tasks using Likert (or Likert-type) items, we investigated perceptions of physical strength from images of male bodies. The stimulus set comprised images of 82 men standing on a raised platform with minimal clothing. Strength-related anthropometrics and grip strength measurements were available for each man in the set. UK laboratory participants (Study 1) and US online participants (Study 2) viewed all images in both a Likert rating task, to collect mean Likert scores, and a pairwise comparison task, to calculate Elo, mean Elo (mElo), and Bradley-Terry scores. Within both studies, Likert, Elo and Bradley-Terry scores were closely correlated to mElo scores (all rs > 0.95), and all measures were correlated with stimulus grip strength (all rs > 0.38) and body size (all rs > 0.59). However, mElo scores were less variable than Elo scores and were hundreds of times quicker to compute than Bradley-Terry scores. Responses in pairwise comparison trials were 2/3 quicker than in Likert tasks, indicating that participants found pairwise comparisons to be easier. In addition, mElo scores generated from a data set with half the participants randomly excluded produced very comparable results to those produced with Likert scores from the full participant set, indicating that researchers require fewer participants when using pairwise comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.