The Goodenough technique for determining scale error is compared to the Guttman technique and demonstrated to be more conservative than the Guttman technique. Implications with regard to Guttman's evaluative rule of thumb for evaluating a reproducibility are noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., Sall, J. P. and Helwig, J. T.A user's guide to SAS 76. Raleigh, N. C.: SAS Institute , 1976.
2.
Dixon, W.BMD: biomedical computer programs. Los Angeles : University of California Press, 1971.
3.
Edwards, A.Techniques of attitude scale construction . New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc., 1957.
4.
Goodenough, W. H.A technique for scale analysis . EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1944, 4, 179-190.
5.
Guttman, L.The basis for scalogram analysis . In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman , P. F. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star and J. A. Clausen (eds.). Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.
6.
Nie. N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., and Bent, D. H.Spss: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
7.
Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling . New York: Wiley, 1958.
8.
White, B. W. and Saltz, E.Measurement of reproducibility. Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 81-99.
