Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:58:49.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Connection Between Magnitude and Discrimination Scales and Direct and Indirect Scaling Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Hannes Eisler
Hannes Eisler*
Affiliation:
University of Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

(1) An analysis of the method of paired comparisons shows that Case V and Case VI, the latter characterized by log-normal distributions and Weber’s law for subjective continua, are fundamentally indistinguishable. Case VI produces a log-arithmetic interval scale of subjective magnitude. (2) It is demonstrated that the difference between discrimination scales according to Case V and from category rating is due to the difference between intra- and interindividual variability yielding different Weber functions.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 271 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the Humanistic Faculty of the University of Stockholm and by the Swedish Social Science Research Council. I am indebted to Mr. U. Forsberg for computational assistance.

References

Adams, E. and Messick, S. An axiomatic formulation and generalization of successive intervals scaling. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, J. and Brown, J. The lognormal distribution, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Björkman, M. Variability data and direct quantitative judgment for scaling subjective magnitude. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1960, No. 78.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. A. Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation. Biometrics, 1953, 9, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. A. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. III. Some large-sample results on estimation and power for a method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1955, 42, 450–470.Google Scholar
Cramér, H. Mathematical methods of statistics, Uppsala: Gebers, 1945.Google Scholar
Eisler, H. Empirical test of a model relating magnitude and category scales. Scand. J. Psychol., 1962, 3, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. On the problem of category scales in psychophysics. Scand. J. Psychol., 1962, 3, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. How prothetic is the continuum of smell?. Scand. J. Psychol., 1963, 4, 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. Magnitude scales, category scales, and Fechnerian integration. Psychol. Rev., 1963, 70, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. A general differential equation in psychophysics: Derivation and empirical test. Scand. J. Psychol., 1963, 4, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, H. and Ottander, C. On the problem of hysteresis in psychophysics. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 65, 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. Discriminal sensitivity on the subjective continuum. Acta Psychol., 1956, 12, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. Three methods of estimating discriminal dispersion. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1957, No. 50..Google Scholar
Ekman, G. Weber’s law and related functions. J. Psychol., 1959, 47, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. Some aspects of psychophysical research. In Rosenblith, W. A. (Eds.), Sensory communication, New York: Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
Ekman, G. Measurement of moral judgment: A comparison of scaling methods. Percept. mot. Skills, 1962, 15, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, G. and Dahlbäck, B. A subjective scale of velocity. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1956, No. 31..Google Scholar
Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Subjective dispersion and the Weber function. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1957, No. 41.Google Scholar
Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Measurement of aesthetic value by “direct” and “indirect” methods. Scand. J. Psychol., 1962, 3, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Scales of aesthetic value. Percept. mot. Skills, 1962, 14, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Scales of conservatism. Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, 16, 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. A further study of direct and indirect scaling methods. Scand. J. Psychol., 1963, 4, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engen, T. and Lindström, C. O. Psychophysical scales of the odor intensity of amyl acetate. Scand. J. Psychol., 1963, 4, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnie, B. and Luce, R. D. Magnitude-estimation, pair-comparison and successive intervals scales of attitude items. Mem. MP-9, U. Pennsylvania. Not dated.Google Scholar
Galanter, E. and Messick, S. The relation between category and magnitude scales of loudness. Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, W. R. An equal discriminability scale for loudness judgments. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, W. R. and Hake, H. W. The amount of information in absolute judgments. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goude, G. On fundamental measurement in psychology, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1962.Google Scholar
Gridgeman, N. T. The Bradley-Terry probability model and preference tasting. Biometrics, 1955, 11, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Introduction and historical background. In Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Hald, A. Statistical theory with engineering applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Helm, C. E., Messick, S., and Tucker, L. R. Psychological models for relating discrimination and magnitude estimation scales. Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, M. G. The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. I., London: Griffin, 1945.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. The mystery of the missing corpus. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöberg, L. An empirical application of a new case of the law of comparative judgment. Scand. J. Psychol., 1963, 4, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. Measurement, psychophysics, and utility. In Churchman, C. W., and Ratoosh, P. (Eds.), Measurement: Definitions and theories, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. Sic transit gloria varietatis?. Contemp. Psychol., 1959, 4, 388–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales, and confusion scales. In Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. The surprising simplicity of sensory metrics. Amer. Psychologist, 1962, 17, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. and Guirao, M. Loudness, reciprocality, and partition scales. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1962, 34, 1466–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. L. Basic measurement theory. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. I, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev., 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Distances and ratios in psychophysical scaling. Acta Psychol., 1961, 19, 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar