Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36103049›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Rating norms should be calculated from cumulative link mixed effects models.

Jack E Taylor, Guillaume A Rousselet, Christoph Scheepers, Sara C Sereno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jack E TaylorSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK. j.taylor.3@research.gla.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4765-0118
Guillaume A RousseletSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0006-8729
Christoph ScheepersSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3127-8764
Sara C SerenoSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK. Sara.Sereno@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7957-9542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies which provide norms of Likert ratings typically report per-item summary statistics. Traditionally, these summary statistics comprise the mean and the standard deviation (SD) of the ratings, and the number of observations. Such summary statistics can preserve the rank order of items, but provide distorted estimates of the relative distances between items because of the ordinal nature of Likert ratings. Inter-item relations in such ordinal scales can be more appropriately modelled by cumulative link mixed effects models (CLMMs). In a series of simulations, and with a reanalysis of an existing rating norms dataset, we show that CLMMs can be used to more accurately norm items, and can provide summary statistics analogous to the traditionally reported means and SDs, but which are disentangled from participants' response biases. CLMMs can be applied to solve important statistical issues that exist for more traditional analyses of rating norms.

Indexed as

Character similarityConcretenessNormsRatings

Identifiers

PMID36103049
PMCPMC10439063

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.