Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29293615›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Why rate when you could compare? Using the "EloChoice" package to assess pairwise comparisons of perceived physical strength.

Andrew P Clark, Kate L Howard, Andy T Woods, Ian S Penton-Voak, Christof Neumann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Free-breathing phase-sensitive inversion recovery TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Best-worst scaling improves measurement of first impressions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrew P ClarkBrunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4148-2440
Kate L HowardUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andy T WoodsXperiment, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ian S Penton-VoakUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Christof NeumannUniversité de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ClothingMuscle StrengthPerceptionAdolescentHand StrengthHumansMaleProbabilityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29293615
PMCPMC5749798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.