Only slight advantages are shown for the Stapel scale in lack of leniency (high scores) and the semantic differential scale in precision (low variance) in a comparison of these scale approaches with the Likert one in measuring store image. Careful measure validation showed no marked differences among the three scale approaches, and thus choices among them should be made on other grounds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaumGerald, BestRoger, and HawkinsDel. “The Measurement Properties of Semantic Scale Data,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 19 (January 1977), 21–6.
2.
AlbaumGerald and MunsingerG. “Methodological Questions Concerning the Use of the Semantic Differential,” paper presented at Spring 1973 meeting of Southern Marketing Association.
3.
BoruchRobert F. and WolinsLeroy. “A Procedure for Estimation of Trait, Method and Error Variance Attributable to a Measure,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 (November 1970), 547–74.
4.
CampbellDonald T. and FiskeDonald W. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56 (March 1959), 81–105.
5.
CrespiIrving. “Use of a Scaling Technique in Surveys,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (July 1961), 3–26.
6.
DawesR. M.Fundamentals of Attitude Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972.
7.
ElbertNorbert F. and BelohlavJames. “The Misleading Influence of Methods Variance When a Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Technique is Used,” American Institute for Decision Sciences Ninth Annual Conference Proceeding, 1977, 286–8.
8.
FiskGeorge. “A Conceptual Model for Studying Customer Image,” Journal of Retailing, 62 (Winter1961–2), 1–8.
9.
HawkinsDel I., AlbaumGerald, and BestRoger. “Stapel Scale or Sematic Differential in Marketing Research?” Journal of the Market Research Society, 11 (August 1974), 318–22.
10.
HeelerRoger M. and RayMichael L. “Measure Validation in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (November 1972), 361–70.
11.
HenkelR. L. “Part-Whole Ordinal and Quasi-Interval Data as Internal Data,” Pacific Sociological Review, 18 (January 1975), 3–26.
12.
HolmesC. “A Statistical Evaluation of Rating Scales,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 16 (April 1974), 28.
13.
HughesG. D. “Some Confounding Effects of Forced Choice Scales,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (May 1969), 223–6.
14.
JöreskogK. G., GruvaensG. T., and van ThilloM.ACOVS—A General Computer Program for Analysis of Covariance Structures, Research Bulletin 70–15. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1970.
15.
KallenbergA. L. and KluegelJ. R. “Analysis of the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix: Some Limitations and an Alternative,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (February 1975), 1–9.
16.
KassarjianHarold H. and NakanishiMasao. “A Study of Selected Opinion Measurement Techniques,” Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (May 1967), 148–53.
17.
KunkelJohn H. and BerryLeonard L. “A Behavioral Conception of Retail Image,” Journal of Marketing, 32 (October 1968), 21–7.
18.
LabovitzS. “The Assignment of Numbers to Rank Order Categories,” American Sociological Review, 35 (1970), 515–24.
19.
LehmanD. R. and HulbertJ. “Are Three Point-Point Scales Always Good Enough?” Journal of Marketing Research, 9(November 1972), 444–6.
20.
MartillaJ. A. and CarveyD. “Four Subtle Sins in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (January 1975), 8–15.
21.
MartineauPierre. “The Personality of the Retail Store,” Harvard Business Review, 36 (January-February 1958), 47–55.
22.
MastersJ. R. “Number of Categories of a Summated Rating Scale,” unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1972.
23.
MatellM. S. and JacobyJ. “Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert-Scale Items?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (December 1972), 506–9.
