ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Psychometric benefits of self-chosen rating scales over given rating scales.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How continuous is continuous enough? Comparing the reliability of continuous and discrete scales.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A Beta Mixture Model for Careless Respondent Detection in Visual Analogue Scale Data.Psychometrika · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rating scales are susceptible to response styles that undermine the scale quality. Optimizing a rating scale can tailor it to individuals' cognitive abilities, thereby preventing the occurrence of response styles related to a suboptimal response format. However, the discrimination ability of individuals in a sample may vary, suggesting that different rating scales may be appropriate for different individuals. This study aims to examine (1) whether response styles can be avoided when individuals are allowed to choose a rating scale and (2) whether the psychometric properties of self-chosen rating scales improve compared to given rating scales. To address these objectives, data from the flourishing scale were used as an illustrative example. MTurk workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform (N = 7042) completed an eight-item flourishing scale twice: (1) using a randomly assigned four-, six-, or 11-point rating scale, and (2) using a self-chosen rating scale. Applying the restrictive mixed generalized partial credit model (rmGPCM) allowed examination of category use across the conditions. Correlations with external variables were calculated to assess the effects of the rating scales on criterion validity. The results revealed consistent use of self-chosen rating scales, with approximately equal proportions of the three response styles. Ordinary response behavior was observed in 55-58% of individuals, which was an increase of 12-15% compared to assigned rating scales. The self-chosen rating scales also exhibited superior psychometric properties. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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.