Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396834›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Accuracy and precision of responses to visual analog scales: Inter- and intra-individual variability.

Miguel A García-Pérez, Rocío Alcalá-Quintana

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Miguel A García-PérezDepartamento de Metodología, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223, Madrid, Spain. miguel@psi.ucm.es.
Rocío Alcalá-QuintanaDepartamento de Metodología, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual analog scales (VASs) are gaining popularity for collecting responses in computer administration of psychometric tests and surveys. The VAS format consists of a line marked at its endpoints with the minimum and maximum positions that it covers for respondents to place a mark at their selected location. Creating the line with intermediate marks along its length was discouraged, but no empirical evidence has ever been produced to show that their absence does any good. We report a study that asked respondents to place marks at pre-selected locations on a 100-unit VAS line, first when it only had numerical labels (0 and 100) at its endpoints and then when intermediate locations (from 0 to 100 in steps of 20) were also labeled. The results show that settings are more accurate and more precise when the VAS line has intermediate tick marks: The average absolute error decreased from 3.02 units without intermediate marks to 0.82 units with them. Provision of intermediate tick marks also reduced substantially inter- and intra-individual variability in accuracy and precision: The standard deviation of absolute error decreased from 0.87 units without tick marks to 0.25 units with them and the standard deviation of signed distance to target decreased from 1.16 units without tick marks to 0.24 units with them. These results prompt the recommendation that the design of VASs includes intermediate tick marks along the length of the line.

Indexed as

ComputersHumansPain MeasurementPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesVisual Analog ScaleAccuracyLikert scalesPrecisionPseudoneglectVisual analog scales

Identifiers

PMID36396834
PMCPMC10700476

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.