Addressing the Elephant in the Middle: Implications of the Midscale Disagreement Problem Through the Lens of Body-Object Interaction Ratings

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Dimitri Paisios, N. Huet, É. Labeye
{"title":"Addressing the Elephant in the Middle: Implications of the Midscale Disagreement Problem Through the Lens of Body-Object Interaction Ratings","authors":"Dimitri Paisios, N. Huet, É. Labeye","doi":"10.1525/collabra.84564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When participants disagree about their judgments on a Likert-type scale, the average rating will be naturally drawn towards its middle. The present work’s goal is to explore the implications of this midscale disagreement problem for psycholinguistic norms by using the literature on Body-Object Interaction (BOI) ratings as a case study. Through a series of graphical analyses, we argue that (i) the average rating of most midscale items cannot be interpreted as their true position on the variable’s continuum; (ii) other variables driving the disagreement in judgements can introduce an independent midscale effect in word processing performances; (iii) the typical sample sizes used by norming studies are likely insufficient to reliably detect disagreements and can lead to significant measurement error. A methodological review of the studies on BOI’s effect in word processing reveals that most of them suffer from the midscale disagreement problem, either because of inadequate word sampling or statistical modelling. Whereas these observations provide initial clues for the interpretation and use of the ratings, it remains difficult to determine the full scope of the disagreement problem based only on the summary statistics reported by rating studies. To address this point, we present new BOI ratings for a set of 1019 French words which we use to perform item-level descriptive and exploratory analyses. Overall, the results confirm that unipolar Likert-type scale ratings such as BOI capture the dimension of interest mainly at the two ends of the scale, while they represent increasing disagreement among participants as they approach the middle. These observations provide initial best-practice recommendations for the use and interpretation of subjective variables. Our analyses can additionally serve as general guidelines to interpret similar ratings and to assess the validity of previous findings in the literature based on standard summary statics.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.84564","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When participants disagree about their judgments on a Likert-type scale, the average rating will be naturally drawn towards its middle. The present work’s goal is to explore the implications of this midscale disagreement problem for psycholinguistic norms by using the literature on Body-Object Interaction (BOI) ratings as a case study. Through a series of graphical analyses, we argue that (i) the average rating of most midscale items cannot be interpreted as their true position on the variable’s continuum; (ii) other variables driving the disagreement in judgements can introduce an independent midscale effect in word processing performances; (iii) the typical sample sizes used by norming studies are likely insufficient to reliably detect disagreements and can lead to significant measurement error. A methodological review of the studies on BOI’s effect in word processing reveals that most of them suffer from the midscale disagreement problem, either because of inadequate word sampling or statistical modelling. Whereas these observations provide initial clues for the interpretation and use of the ratings, it remains difficult to determine the full scope of the disagreement problem based only on the summary statistics reported by rating studies. To address this point, we present new BOI ratings for a set of 1019 French words which we use to perform item-level descriptive and exploratory analyses. Overall, the results confirm that unipolar Likert-type scale ratings such as BOI capture the dimension of interest mainly at the two ends of the scale, while they represent increasing disagreement among participants as they approach the middle. These observations provide initial best-practice recommendations for the use and interpretation of subjective variables. Our analyses can additionally serve as general guidelines to interpret similar ratings and to assess the validity of previous findings in the literature based on standard summary statics.
解决中间的大象:通过身体-物体相互作用评级镜头的中等规模分歧问题的含义
当参与者在李克特量表上不同意他们的判断时,平均评分自然会向中间值靠拢。本研究的目的是通过对身体-对象互动(BOI)评分的文献作为案例研究,探讨这种中等规模的不一致问题对心理语言规范的影响。通过一系列的图形分析,我们认为(i)大多数中等项目的平均评级不能被解释为它们在变量连续体上的真实位置;(ii)导致判断不一致的其他变量可以在文字处理表现中引入独立的中尺度效应;(iii)标准化研究使用的典型样本量可能不足以可靠地发现分歧,并可能导致显著的测量误差。对BOI在文字处理中的影响的研究进行方法学回顾表明,大多数研究都存在中等规模的分歧问题,这要么是因为单词采样不足,要么是因为统计建模不足。虽然这些观察结果为解释和使用评级提供了初步线索,但仅根据评级研究报告的汇总统计数据来确定分歧问题的全部范围仍然很困难。为了解决这一点,我们提出了一组1019个法语单词的新的BOI评级,我们使用它来执行项目级别的描述性和探索性分析。总体而言,结果证实了单极李克特量表评级(如BOI)主要在量表的两端捕获了兴趣维度,而当参与者接近中间时,它们代表了参与者之间越来越多的分歧。这些观察结果为主观变量的使用和解释提供了初步的最佳实践建议。我们的分析还可以作为解释类似评级的一般指南,并根据标准汇总统计评估文献中先前发现的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信