On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:17:55 -0800, Jay Tanzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I just got chewed out by my boss for modelling the means of some 7-point
>semantic differential scales. The scales were part of a written,
>self-administered questionnaire, and were laid out like this:
>
>Not stressful 1__ 2__ 3__ 4__ 5__ 6__ 7__ Very stressful
>
>So, why or why not is it kosher to model the means of scales like this?
>
>-Jay
You can check it out by reading the pioneers of the semantic
differential scale. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum are the authors of
"Measurement of Meaning" which now is published in paperback by the
University of Illinois Press, Oct. 1990. It may be your boss is a
stickler on what constitutes a true interval scale. It could be
he/she wants no middle value score - that way respondents must tilt
toward a yea or nay. It could be the use of the particular bipolars
"not stressful" and "very stressful." Why not use stressful and not
stressful? What is "very" stressful? By reading the Osgood et al
text, you can find many nifty ideas and variations for using the
semantic differential scale. Like the Likert Scale, I suppose it is
arguably an ordinal scale. But, there are lots of statistical tools
you could employ using rankings, medians, etc. Like the Likert Scale
devotees, there are those who nevertheless use means as the measure
of central tendency with semantic differential instruments. Good
luck.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
