Are ordinal rating scales better than percent ratings? a statistical and "psychological" view
Are ordinal rating scales better than percent ratings? a statistical and "psychological" view
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10681-006-9296-z
复制
发表时间：
2007-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Piepho, H. -P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hartung, K.;Piepho, H. -P.
疾病的发病率和严重程度通常通过顺序评定量表来评估，例如，分数从1到9，或百分比评级量表。本文比较了三种不同的评分量表的准确性，精度和评分所需的时间。根据右偏β分布生成霉变谷物叶片的象形图。要求具有不同评级经验的人在三个不同的尺度上对叶子进行评级：两个不同的百分比尺度[1%-步骤（P1）和5%-步骤（P5）]和顺序9点评级尺度（R9），其中阈值遵循相对于基础百分比尺度的对数模式。使用混合模型记录和评估估计的疾病严重程度的转换值以及估计每片叶所需的转换时间。在大多数情况下，这两个百分比评级表现优于顺序评级量表。对于未经训练的组每片叶子所需的时间，方法R9更好。在训练组中，P5的表现优于其他两种方法。评分员大多更喜欢R9，尤其是在未经训练的情况下。然而，结果表明，P5可以推荐的准确性。
Disease incidence and severity are often assessed by either an ordinal rating scale, e.g., with scores from 1 to 9, or a percentage rating scale. This paper compares three different rating scales regarding accuracy, precision, and time needed for scoring. Pictograms of mildew diseased cereal leaves were generated following a right skewed beta-distribution. Persons with different rating experience were asked to rate the leaves on three different scales: two different percentage scales [1%-steps (P1) and 5%-steps (P5)] and an ordinal 9-point rating scale (R9) where thresholds followed a logarithmic pattern with respect to the underlying percentage scale. A transformed value of the estimated disease severity as well as the transformed time needed to estimate per leaf was documented and evaluated using mixed models. In most cases both percent ratings performed better than the ordinal rating scale. For the time needed per leaf by the untrained group, method R9 was better. With the trained group P5 performed better than both other methods. The raters mostly preferred R9, especially when untrained. Nevertheless, the results suggest that P5 can be recommended in terms of accuracy.