Quantifier Labels
Vague quantifier labels which are known to be prone to different interpretations, e.g. ‘‘often’’ can mean ‘‘once a week’’ for a respondent and ‘‘once a day’’ for another (Pohl 1981; Saris and Gallhofer 2014).
Closed-range (or interval) quantifier labels, compared to vague quantifiers, are argued to be more precise and less prone to different interpretations (Saris and Gallhofer 2014).
Closed-range (or interval) quantifier labels, compared to vague quantifiers, are argued to be more precise and less prone to different interpretations (Saris and Gallhofer 2014).
Theoretical arguments
- AD scales are clearer to interpret than vague quantifiers (Brown 2004).*
- It is not clear what exactly word set provides better equal interval scaling (Pohl 1981).*
- Closed-range should provide enough labels such that respondents do not feel that their behaviours are not normal (Revilla 2015).*
- Vague quantifiers prone to different interpretations than closed (Saris and Gallhofer 2014).*
- Respondents use the labels like “usual” as standards of comparison and seem reluctant to report behaviours that are unusual in the context of the scale (Schwarz et al. 1985).*
Empirical evidence on data quality
*DeCastellarnau, A. Qual Quant (2018) 52: 1523. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4
- Vague quantifiers display higher levels of validity than numeric open-ended quantifiers [Predictive validity] (Al Baghal 2014b) → YES*
- Vague quantifiers are equal or better than open-ended quantifiers [Rank-order correlations and regression slopes] (Al Baghal 2014a) → NO*
*DeCastellarnau, A. Qual Quant (2018) 52: 1523. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4
References
Al Baghal, T. (2014b). Is vague valid? The comparative predictive validity of vague quantifiers and numeric response options. Surv. Res. Methods 8, 169–179. doi: 10.18148/srm/2014.v8i3.5813
Al Baghal, T. (2014a). Numeric estimation and response options: an examination of the accuracy of numeric and vague quantifier responses. J. Methods Meas. Soc. Sci. 6, 58–75. doi: 10.2458/azu_jmmss.v5i2.1847
Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: comparison of agreement and frequency scales. Psychol. Rep. 94, 1015–1024. doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.3.1015-1024
Pohl, N.F. (1981). Scale considerations in using vague quantifiers. J. Exp Educ. 49, 235–240. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1981.11011790
Revilla, M. (2015). Effect of using different labels for the scales in a web survey. Int. J. Mark. Res. 57, 225–238. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2014-028
Saris, W.E., Gallhofer, I.N. (2014). Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research. Wiley, Hoboken
Schwarz, N., Hippler, H.-J., Deutsch, B., Strack, F. (1985). Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opin. Q. 49, 388–395. doi: 10.1086/268936
Al Baghal, T. (2014b). Is vague valid? The comparative predictive validity of vague quantifiers and numeric response options. Surv. Res. Methods 8, 169–179. doi: 10.18148/srm/2014.v8i3.5813
Al Baghal, T. (2014a). Numeric estimation and response options: an examination of the accuracy of numeric and vague quantifier responses. J. Methods Meas. Soc. Sci. 6, 58–75. doi: 10.2458/azu_jmmss.v5i2.1847
Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: comparison of agreement and frequency scales. Psychol. Rep. 94, 1015–1024. doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.3.1015-1024
Pohl, N.F. (1981). Scale considerations in using vague quantifiers. J. Exp Educ. 49, 235–240. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1981.11011790
Revilla, M. (2015). Effect of using different labels for the scales in a web survey. Int. J. Mark. Res. 57, 225–238. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2014-028
Saris, W.E., Gallhofer, I.N. (2014). Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research. Wiley, Hoboken
Schwarz, N., Hippler, H.-J., Deutsch, B., Strack, F. (1985). Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opin. Q. 49, 388–395. doi: 10.1086/268936