dc.contributor.author | Menold, Natalja | de |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-01-30T10:38:56Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-01-30T10:38:56Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | de |
dc.identifier.issn | 1525-822X | de |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/99516 | |
dc.description.abstract | While numerical bipolar rating scales may evoke positivity bias, little is known about the corresponding bias in verbal bipolar rating scales. The choice of verbalization of the middle category may lead to response bias, particularly if it is not in line with the scale polarity. Unipolar and bipolar seven-category rating scales in which the verbalizations of the middle categories matched or did not match the implemented polarity were investigated in randomized experiments using a non-probabilistic online access panel in Germany. Bipolar rating scales exhibited higher positivity bias and acquiescence than unipolar rating scales. Reliability, validity, and equidistance tended to be violated if the verbalizations of the middle category did not match scale polarity. The results provide a rationale for rating scale verbalization. | de |
dc.language | en | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Social sciences, sociology, anthropology | en |
dc.subject.other | bipolare Skalen; unipolare Skalen; Gender-role attitudes (ISSP 94) (ZIS 223); | de |
dc.title | Verbalization of Rating Scales Taking Account of Their Polarity | de |
dc.description.review | begutachtet (peer reviewed) | de |
dc.description.review | peer reviewed | en |
dc.source.journal | Field Methods | |
dc.source.volume | 35 | de |
dc.publisher.country | USA | de |
dc.source.issue | 4 | 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 | Ratingskala | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | rating scale | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Validität | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | validity | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Reliabilität | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | reliability | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Antwortverhalten | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | response behavior | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Kategorie | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | category | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Erhebungsmethode | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data collection method | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | quantitative Methode | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | quantitative method | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Bundesrepublik Deutschland | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | Federal Republic of Germany | en |
dc.identifier.urn | urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-99516-0 | |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Namensnennung, Nicht-kommerz. 4.0 | de |
dc.rights.licence | Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 | en |
ssoar.contributor.institution | FDB | de |
internal.status | formal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossen | de |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10055936 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10049626 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10056537 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10035808 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10048669 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037921 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10052183 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037571 | |
dc.type.stock | article | de |
dc.type.document | Zeitschriftenartikel | de |
dc.type.document | journal article | en |
dc.source.pageinfo | 378-391 | de |
internal.identifier.classoz | 10105 | |
internal.identifier.journal | 1363 | |
internal.identifier.document | 32 | |
internal.identifier.ddc | 300 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X231151314 | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Veröffentlichungsversion | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Published Version | en |
internal.identifier.licence | 32 | |
internal.identifier.pubstatus | 1 | |
internal.identifier.review | 1 | |
internal.pdf.valid | false | |
internal.pdf.wellformed | true | |
internal.pdf.encrypted | false | |