Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42487052›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Measurement error is lower for visual analogue scales than for slider scales.

Tim Angelike, Ulf-Dietrich Reips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tim AngelikeResearch Methods, Assessment, and iScience, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Fach 31, Konstanz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6485-7141
Ulf-Dietrich ReipsResearch Methods, Assessment, and iScience, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Fach 31, Konstanz, Germany. reips@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1566-4745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Errors in measurement can arise in study and survey responses when there is a discrepancy between the intended and selected response. A significant portion of the scientific discourse has centered on the comparison of discrete and continuous response scales. In this study, we examined various continuous rating scales to ascertain which scale would yield the lowest measurement error. To this end, we compared visual analogue scales (VAS) with different slider scales in an online study (N = 222) that built upon the original work by Reips and Funke (2008). In this study, participants were asked to estimate where a percentage value would lie on a line ranging from 0 to 100%. The slider scale conditions differed in the initialization of the slider thumb (left, middle, right), with an additional slider condition that employed the default HTML slider with a large thumb without any modifications. The findings of this study suggest that the measurement error in estimating the true value was lower in VAS than in slider scales. Additionally, our findings suggest that VAS lead to reduced variability in errors within and between individuals. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, we did not find a higher measurement error in the default slider than in the other slider conditions. The findings of this study suggest that VAS may offer a more precise means to the assessment of ratings. Practitioners who intend to employ continuous rating scales should consider employing VAS or at least carefully consider the pitfalls of slider scales.

Indexed as

Visual Analog ScaleHumansData qualityFormatting errorMeasurement errorRating scaleSlider scalesVisual analogue scaleWeb survey

Identifiers

PMID42487052
PMCPMC13391775

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.