dc.contributor.author | Züll, Cornelia | de |
dc.contributor.author | Scholz, Evi | de |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-04-11T08:30:41Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-04-11T08:30:41Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | de |
dc.identifier.issn | 1234-9224 | de |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/56779 | |
dc.description.abstract | Left-right self-placement on a unidimensional scale is a standard question in many social and political surveys to measure respondents' ideological orientation in a minimalist way.Although the left-right scale is a standard question, the scale design is not standardized across surveys. One aspect of scale design is the offer of a midpoint. This paper is about design effects on central left-right scale placement in a cross-national context. How do respondents answer if there is no true midpoint: Do respondents who want to express a middle position, in the case of a 10-point scale, use scale middle categories as a substitute for a true midpoint? Are findings consistent across countries? Offering a midpoint is much debated among researchers and quite often, a midpoint might serve as a hidden "don't know" or a missing attitude. Does nonresponse increase when non-attitudes cannot be expressed by choosing the neutral midpoint to hide nonresponse? If middle categories in the 10-point scale work as substitute for a true midpoint in the 11-point scale, nonresponse will not differ. We tested these questions in a split-half experiment where either a 10-point or an 11-point scale was asked in an experimental web survey fielded in six countries. Our results seem to confirm the idea that respondents who favor choosing a scale middle find a virtual center in the 10-point scale. However, results are inconsistent in cross-national perspective. | en |
dc.language | en | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Social sciences, sociology, anthropology | en |
dc.subject.other | cross-cultural comparison; scale midpoint; left-right self-placement; openended questions | de |
dc.title | 10 points versus 11 points? Effects of Left-right Scale Design in a Cross-national Perspective | de |
dc.description.review | begutachtet (peer reviewed) | de |
dc.description.review | peer reviewed | en |
dc.source.journal | Ask: Research and Methods | |
dc.source.volume | 25 | de |
dc.publisher.country | MISC | |
dc.source.issue | 1 | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Erhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaften | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Methods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methods | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | interkultureller Vergleich | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | intercultural comparison | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Datengewinnung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data capture | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Skalenkonstruktion | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | scale construction | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Antwortverhalten | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | response behavior | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Datenqualität | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data quality | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Umfrageforschung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | survey research | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Befragung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | survey | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | politische Einstellung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | political attitude | en |
dc.identifier.urn | urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-56779-8 | |
dc.rights.licence | Deposit Licence - Keine Weiterverbreitung, keine Bearbeitung | de |
dc.rights.licence | Deposit Licence - No Redistribution, No Modifications | en |
ssoar.contributor.institution | GESIS | de |
internal.status | formal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossen | de |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10047773 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10040547 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10057951 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10035808 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10055811 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10040714 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037910 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10041739 | |
dc.type.stock | article | de |
dc.type.document | Zeitschriftenartikel | de |
dc.type.document | journal article | en |
dc.source.pageinfo | 3-16 | de |
internal.identifier.classoz | 10105 | |
internal.identifier.journal | 1326 | |
internal.identifier.document | 32 | |
internal.identifier.ddc | 300 | |
dc.description.pubstatus | Veröffentlichungsversion | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Published Version | en |
internal.identifier.licence | 3 | |
internal.identifier.pubstatus | 1 | |
internal.identifier.review | 1 | |
ssoar.wgl.collection | true | de |
internal.pdf.version | 1.6 | |
internal.pdf.valid | false | |
internal.pdf.wellformed | false | |
internal.check.abstractlanguageharmonizer | CERTAIN | |
internal.check.languageharmonizer | CERTAIN_RETAINED | |