"Why functional measurement is (still) better than conjoint measurement: Judgement of numerosity by children and adolescents"
"Why functional measurement is (still) better than conjoint measurement: Judgement of numerosity by children and adolescents"
复制标题
“为什么功能测量（仍然）优于联合测量：儿童和青少年对数量的判断”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Andrews
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Shanteau;L. Pringle;J. Andrews
联合测量（CM）的支持者继续引用克兰茨、吕斯、苏佩斯和特沃斯基（1971）的一个论点，该论点来自西多夫斯基和安德森（1967）对城市占领研究的重新分析。安德森（1982）反驳了这一论点，并证明了功能测量（FM）的优越性;安德森的论点之一是CM缺乏揭示实质性相互作用的能力。尽管如此，Coxon（2006，p.9）最近得出结论，“（在Sidowski和安德森）的相互作用是假设评级量表是区间水平的人为产物。（因为）保序[单调]加性表示是可能的。在本研究中，一年级儿童，四年级儿童和青少年评估的判断的数字的大小（面积）和密度的基础上。FM分析显示，青少年遵循规范的乘法规则，而儿童一般是加法。相比之下，CM分析对儿童和青少年遵循的不同整合规则不敏感，即，所有年龄段都存在附加代表。因此，一个重要的发展趋势，是明显的图形和统计FM分析消失在CM分析。这不仅支持了安德森关于FM技术优越性的论点，还为基于Sidowski和安德森研究的CM论点提供了一个相关的反例。
Supporters of Conjoint Measurement (CM) continue to cite an argument from Krantz, Luce, Suppes, and Tversky (1971) from a reanalysis of the city-occupation study by Sidowski and Anderson (1967). Anderson (1982) refuted this argument and demonstrated the superiority of Functional Measurement (FM); one of the ar- guments made by Anderson is that CM lacks power to reveal substantive interac- tions. Still, Coxon (2006, p. 9) recently concluded, “the interaction (in Sidowski & Anderson) is an artifact of the assumption that the rating scale is interval level...(because) an order preserving [monotone] additive representation is possiFunctional measurement vs conjoint measurement 11 ble” (p. 7). In the present study, first grade children, fourth grade children, and adolescents assessed judgments of numerosity based on size (area) and density. FM analyses revealed that adolescents followed the normative multiplicative rule, while children were generally additive. CM analyses, in contrast, were insensitive to the different integration rules followed by children and adolescents, i.e., an ad- ditive representation existed for all ages. Thus, an important developmental trend that is apparent both graphically and statistically in FM analyses disappeared in CM analyses. This not only supports Anderson’s arguments about the superiority of FM techniques, it provides a relevant counter-example to the CM arguments based on the Sidowski and Anderson study.