ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2019
Best-worst scaling improves measurement of first impressions.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incorporating preference uncertainty in best worst scaling.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications to inform shared decision-making: A best-worst scaling experiment in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Physician and Patient Preferences for Treatment of Anemia Associated with Chronic Kidney Disease in Japan: A Survey Including Best-Worst Scaling.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Patient preferences, regret, and health-related quality of life among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A pilot longitudinal study.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2023Article
- 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 Effect of Odor Valence on Facial Attractiveness Judgment: A Preliminary Experiment.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Beyond Likert ratings: Improving the robustness of developmental research measurement using best-worst scaling.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
- Collecting Physicians' Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingReview
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
Abstract
A common goal in psychological research is the measurement of subjective impressions, such as first impressions of faces. These impressions are commonly measured using Likert ratings. Although these ratings are simple to administer, they are associated with response issues that can limit reliability. Here we examine best-worst scaling (BWS), a forced-choice method, as a potential alternative to Likert ratings for measuring participants' facial first impressions. We find that at the group level, BWS scores correlated almost perfectly with Likert scores, indicating that the two methods measure the same impressions. However, at the individual participant level BWS outperforms Likert ratings, both in terms of ability to predict preferences in a third task, and in terms of test-retest reliability. These benefits highlight the power of BWS, particularly for use in individual differences research.
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.